I can just imagine what all the other hunters thought when Sam called them all and then they called John and didn't get an answer. Pissed ain't the word.
More fall-outs and people threatening to shoot him on sight? *g*
Except that that would just be bad storytelling on the writers' parts. If you later want to tell me that someone was somewhere where I, the viewer, did not see him, you'd better do it just a couple of episodes on, before I forget that I didn't see him where I didn't see him. If you want me, the viewer, to know that he was there, but you don't want the characters to know, then show him to me, okay? Simple storytelling.I think it would have been okay to not show him in any way like they did here but a proper follow-up was definitely required. Best done as an acknowledgment by John upon their next personal encounter. *cough* The worst that could be done would be a follow-up that had John when prodded be all nonchalant about it: "Oh yeah, that. Nearly forgot about it. Wasn`t about the demon, was it?" *cough
( ... )
It could have certainly added another interesting twist if John, as suggested in some fanfics, had been the done to tip Sam off about Roy, via Joshua. With full knowledge about the situation. I could see that happening.
Oh, absolutely. I mean, John is a lot of things, and cunning, devious, and slightly cold regarding Dean's welfare are certainly three of them. I think, if he knew about the Reaper, he could totally have offered Roy's name up to Joshua, knowing what that might mean for Dean and knowing that Dean would take care of the problem.
Which, you know, makes him a cold bastard, but not at all out of character. *sigh*
Thing is, while understandable it is also selfish. Putting your own fears before being there for your dying child and cowardly letting the other child handle the tough stuff. It would be hard to look them in the eye again later on.I think John's screwed up enough that he'd rationalize it all to hell and be able to look Sam in the eye easily. He's really just that fucked up. And even if Possibility One is the
( ... )
I think John's screwed up enough that he'd rationalize it all to hell and be able to look Sam in the eye easily. He's really just that fucked up.
Yeah, I can see that. I swear the man gives me whiplash sometimes from shaking my head. :)
I never said he was selfless, just that he's not the antichrist of daddies. *g*
Well, I never believed that. I mean, even the show itself gave us a negative example in the Dad in Nighmare with a big honkin "Look, it CAN get worse" sign. Even before I knew that it could have been so much worse. For all their screwed-upness Dean or Sam neither struck me as victims of physical or sexual abuse. They`d be worlds different.
1) There's Sam's message, which never explicitly says that Dean is dying or gives a time frame for it. In fact, he leaves off with a rather upbeat, I'm gonna fix it, attitude. Not saying that John couldn't read between the lines, or that the breaks in Sam's voice didn't carry over the cell lines. I think he had to know how serious it was, but there's an argument that he might not have.
2) I dunno what's permitted in the meta in this comm, but one thing that I found interesting, is John's total lack of acknowledgement when Dean calls him on this exact event in Salvation. He almost apologises for not getting in touch (GOD I love the way these guys utterly fail at communicating.) He noticibly doesn't excuse himself, which I think lends support to your theory number two--or to the idea that he simply wasn't a good father in that situation.
I think he had to know how serious it was, but there's an argument that he might not have.
But that conclusion requires that John be oblivious to his son's pain and too fixated on his own hunt to care that... Oh, yeah. Um, okay you have a valid point *g*.
Anything's permissible in the comments--it's the metas that can't extrapolate character arcs from episodes later in the season. And hell yes, John is at his most screwed up in that scene!
It's kind of hard to watch him not acknowledge how much that had to hurt Dean--to pass it off with a "I can't say I like your new attitude" is just another slap in the face of a kid who's spent his whole life trying to make Dad happy.
It's also the answer of a man who has nothing to say for himself and is so terrified of watching his kid die that he's probably all but blocked that damn phone call from his mind, whether the message got to him in time or not.
He can't raise the dead (except in some fanfic *g*)
Does that mean I think of John as God-like? *g*
I don't know if it's just massive inconsistancy in the writing for John, or the writers want to make us all pull out our hair and meta and screawm WTF at our tvs. I'm almost to the point of option #2.
John really is just the most fucked up character on television since Chris Keller on Oz
Duuuuuuuuuuuude! I think I just hurt something. *blink* I don't honestly know what to say to that. I mean yeah, we have two different fucked-up types: John isn't a sexual predator who hates himself. He may hate himself to some degree, thinking he failed Mary by not saving her, or avenging her later on.
Chris. Ahhhhh, what a lovely, lovely broken man *g*
OMG, I don't have a Keller icon! I must amend this post-haste...
Honestly? I don't think he sees himself as a bad father, and I don't think he's trying to be one, and I really think he loves the boys very much, but any way you spin it, not even calling when one of your children is dying = bad parent. Being scared to watch Dean die is surely an understandable emotion but it does make him selfish as hell. If any person I knew acted like this, I'd tell him to suck it the fuck up and go comfort the son who's dying and help the son taking care of the one dying cope with the possible loss of the one true constant in his life. (But then again, if any person I knew acted like John towards their kids, I'd call child protective services. Sure, leave a nine-year-old and a five-year-old alone togeher for days with a loaded shotgun in the room
( ... )
My vote's on explanation #2 with just a dash of #3 (we have no evidence either way on #3. He may well have. That's my story and I'm sticking to it .)
Explanation #1 hadn't honestly occurred to me but that could be the case.
If you later want to tell me that someone was somewhere where I, the viewer, did not see him, you'd better do it just a couple of episodes on, before I forget that I didn't see him where I didn't see him.Right on. Now, maybe in season two we'll get a flashback that reveals that he was there. But you're right it would have to be soon enough after the ep in question to have the impact. OTOH, there have been tv series where something has happened in one season and than up to a full season later, we got another POV or find out more about what happened, throwing that first episode into a completely new light. I'm afraid in this case they're just going to drop it, either through carelessness or an attempt to keep up the John mystique. Revealing that he was there would in a way weaken that. It could be on purpose, to
( ... )
Comments 11
More fall-outs and people threatening to shoot him on sight? *g*
Except that that would just be bad storytelling on the writers' parts. If you later want to tell me that someone was somewhere where I, the viewer, did not see him, you'd better do it just a couple of episodes on, before I forget that I didn't see him where I didn't see him. If you want me, the viewer, to know that he was there, but you don't want the characters to know, then show him to me, okay? Simple storytelling.I think it would have been okay to not show him in any way like they did here but a proper follow-up was definitely required. Best done as an acknowledgment by John upon their next personal encounter. *cough* The worst that could be done would be a follow-up that had John when prodded be all nonchalant about it: "Oh yeah, that. Nearly forgot about it. Wasn`t about the demon, was it?" *cough ( ... )
Reply
Oh, absolutely. I mean, John is a lot of things, and cunning, devious, and slightly cold regarding Dean's welfare are certainly three of them. I think, if he knew about the Reaper, he could totally have offered Roy's name up to Joshua, knowing what that might mean for Dean and knowing that Dean would take care of the problem.
Which, you know, makes him a cold bastard, but not at all out of character. *sigh*
Thing is, while understandable it is also selfish. Putting your own fears before being there for your dying child and cowardly letting the other child handle the tough stuff. It would be hard to look them in the eye again later on.I think John's screwed up enough that he'd rationalize it all to hell and be able to look Sam in the eye easily. He's really just that fucked up. And even if Possibility One is the ( ... )
Reply
Yeah, I can see that. I swear the man gives me whiplash sometimes from shaking my head. :)
I never said he was selfless, just that he's not the antichrist of daddies. *g*
Well, I never believed that. I mean, even the show itself gave us a negative example in the Dad in Nighmare with a big honkin "Look, it CAN get worse" sign. Even before I knew that it could have been so much worse. For all their screwed-upness Dean or Sam neither struck me as victims of physical or sexual abuse. They`d be worlds different.
Reply
Two quick bits of food for thought:
1) There's Sam's message, which never explicitly says that Dean is dying or gives a time frame for it. In fact, he leaves off with a rather upbeat, I'm gonna fix it, attitude. Not saying that John couldn't read between the lines, or that the breaks in Sam's voice didn't carry over the cell lines. I think he had to know how serious it was, but there's an argument that he might not have.
2) I dunno what's permitted in the meta in this comm, but one thing that I found interesting, is John's total lack of acknowledgement when Dean calls him on this exact event in Salvation. He almost apologises for not getting in touch (GOD I love the way these guys utterly fail at communicating.) He noticibly doesn't excuse himself, which I think lends support to your theory number two--or to the idea that he simply wasn't a good father in that situation.
Reply
But that conclusion requires that John be oblivious to his son's pain and too fixated on his own hunt to care that... Oh, yeah. Um, okay you have a valid point *g*.
Reply
Anything's permissible in the comments--it's the metas that can't extrapolate character arcs from episodes later in the season. And hell yes, John is at his most screwed up in that scene!
It's kind of hard to watch him not acknowledge how much that had to hurt Dean--to pass it off with a "I can't say I like your new attitude" is just another slap in the face of a kid who's spent his whole life trying to make Dad happy.
It's also the answer of a man who has nothing to say for himself and is so terrified of watching his kid die that he's probably all but blocked that damn phone call from his mind, whether the message got to him in time or not.
*sigh* I loves John!
Reply
Does that mean I think of John as God-like? *g*
I don't know if it's just massive inconsistancy in the writing for John, or the writers want to make us all pull out our hair and meta and screawm WTF at our tvs. I'm almost to the point of option #2.
Reply
*nods decisively* Yup. I like that answer!
Reply
Duuuuuuuuuuuude! I think I just hurt something. *blink* I don't honestly know what to say to that. I mean yeah, we have two different fucked-up types: John isn't a sexual predator who hates himself. He may hate himself to some degree, thinking he failed Mary by not saving her, or avenging her later on.
Chris. Ahhhhh, what a lovely, lovely broken man *g*
OMG, I don't have a Keller icon! I must amend this post-haste...
Reply
Reply
Explanation #1 hadn't honestly occurred to me but that could be the case.
If you later want to tell me that someone was somewhere where I, the viewer, did not see him, you'd better do it just a couple of episodes on, before I forget that I didn't see him where I didn't see him.Right on. Now, maybe in season two we'll get a flashback that reveals that he was there. But you're right it would have to be soon enough after the ep in question to have the impact. OTOH, there have been tv series where something has happened in one season and than up to a full season later, we got another POV or find out more about what happened, throwing that first episode into a completely new light. I'm afraid in this case they're just going to drop it, either through carelessness or an attempt to keep up the John mystique. Revealing that he was there would in a way weaken that. It could be on purpose, to ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment