Something Wicked (aka The Dementor episode)

[feliciakw]

As if we needed further proof that Sammy Winchester is the American incarnation of Harry Potter, here we have an episode about dementors . . . er . . . shtriga. But the best thing about this (admittedly cool) case ep is the backstory we get, particularly regarding Dean.



So. We continue apace with Sam being annoyed at the separation from John, and Dean following John's orders, even when they don't make sense. But it's more than that, as Sam comes to realize. Seriously, it kinda makes you wonder how well Sam really understands Dean's motivations, sometimes.

This was the ep wherein I realized (completely independent of fandom influence, because I was not reading fic or involved in the fandom at the time that I saw this) that Dean did, essentially, raise Sam, and that Sam is the golden child of the Winchester boys. I don't say this to bash any of the characters, but that's how it reads. Let me explain.

First, we have it established that Dean will give Sam pretty much anything he wants. Sam wanted Spaghetti-os, so Dean fixed Spaghetti-os. But then Sam wants Lucky Charms, and obviously Dean, too, wants some before the box is empty, because he hasn't had any yet, but he lets Sam have them. Sam, in his innocence, offers Dean the prize out of the box, which is very sweet, but I can't help but see it as a consolation prize. If we look at it at its very basic foundation, Dean is giving up sustenance, and Sam offers him a toy. (Of course, Dean could have eaten the Spaghetti-os, but that's not quite the point of the scene.) It just . . . to see Dean in such an adult role at such a young age. It's both heartwarming and heartbreaking.

Then Dean makes the mistake of leaving the room and endangering Sam's life. Scared child though he is, he's ready to shoot the shtriga when John rescues both boys. John's attention is then wholly on Sammy, and he is understandably angry at Dean. Any reasonable parent would be angry when one child endangers another.

But where John drops the ball is when Dean says, "He never looked at me the same." Whether or not that's true on John's part, the important thing is that that is what Dean grew up with. Knowing he disobeyed his father, almost got his brother killed, and Dad never looking at him the same again. No parent is perfect, and I think this is the point at which Dean developed his "daddy issues."

And Dean doesn't want absolution from Sam, even though he, Dean, was just a kid. He continues to blame himself for unknown children suffering and dying because of his mistake. Oh, Dean.

Then, at the end, when Sam voices the occasional wish for innocence for himself, Dean shares that wish--for Sam. Not for Dean. Because at this point, Dean isn't yet voicing his wishes for himself. Oh, Dean.

One of the things I love about Sam in this ep is Sam's concern for Dean and the fact that he's realizing the kind of childhood Dean might have had. In watching Dean interact with Michael, Sam is starting to realize what kind of responsibility Dean took on at that age. "I give you a lot of crap for always following Dad's orders. But I know why you do it."

And Dean just blows it off. "Kill me now." Because that's just how it's always been and always will be for Dean.

Also in this ep, we have wonderful brother teamwork, a little banter here and there ("I'm the oldest, which means I'm always right." "No, it doesn't." "Yeah, it totally does.")

So, yeah. This was an ep that really struck me when I first saw it. Good stuff.

Comments

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

But where John drops the ball is when Dean says, "He never looked at me the same." Whether or not that's true on John's part, the important thing is that that is what Dean grew up with.

You know what? I know we've had this conversation before, but: I don't believe this is actually John's fault. Obviously, I'm reading my own eldest child experiences into the story (since we don't have much more to go on in canon), but just because Dean says "[Dad] never looked at me the same" doesn't mean John actually didn't. It means Dean thought he didn't--and considering that John's reactions in this episode (aside from the fact that he's leaving his 9-yr-old armed and dangerous, heh) is completely reasonable for any parent, I find it hard to believe that he actually holds this against Dean for any real length of time.

Or rather, perhaps, as an eldest child, I find it much more reasonable that Dean holds this experience against himself--and projects that guilt into his father's interactions with him.

Yes, I'm a John-girl. *g* But I also think that's a pretty reasonable stance.

It's a good ep, indeed. Michael's one of the best young guest stars they've had, imho. And all the brother stuff, especially Sam's realizations, is great. *hugs them both*

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

But that's what I'm trying to say. Dean holds it against himself, and that's where John dropped the ball. Because he apparently never did anything to recognize or correct the misconception on Dean's part. Yes, Dean's observation is very subjective. By its very nature, it's subjective. As I said, it might not have been true on John's part. But apparently, John did nothing to dissuade the perception. Whether he didn't recognize it in Dean, wasn't aware of a change in Dean, or didn't know how to correct the misperception, we only know what Dean says: that John never mentioned the incident again, and Dean never asked about it. Yes, John's anger is wholly understandable (I did say that, right?). But leaving Dean to his own devices in processing the event, not sitting him down and saying this is why you need to follow my orders . . . not voicing any sort of forgiveness . . . That's John's mistake.

I find it hard to believe that he actually holds this against Dean for any real length of time.

Entirely possible. And if you're a John-girl, probable. But he never made his forgiveness clear to Dean.

And if John didn't forgive Dean, why should Dean forgive himself?

So John's in-the-moment anger? Completely understandable and reasonable. Dean's "Dad never looked at me the same"? Quite possibly entirely Dean's misperception of the situation. The lack of discussion of the incident, lack of discernible forgiveness from father to son? That's John's doing as the parent.

Oh, Winchesters.

[izhilzha.livejournal.com]

Dean holds it against himself, and that's where John dropped the ball. Because he apparently never did anything to recognize or correct the misconception on Dean's part.

I don't think it is. Because what you're basically blaming John for, here, is not being a mind-reader. I don't blame my parents for not reading my mind when I took on guilt and responsibilities that weren't mine to hold the way I did--I never told them, I kept it in my own mind and heart, and didn't bring it up. Turns out? They had no idea. And Dean is every bit as good at not talking about stuff like this as I used to be (no, actually, I'm pretty sure he's way better at it *g*).

They're all guys. I'm sure there's a lot they didn't talk about over the years. Sometimes, if you don't know there's an issue, it just doesn't come up.

I watched this episode kinda late in coming to the fandom--and I know I've mentioned this before--and from what I'd heard, I was prepared to hate whatever it was John did or failed to do in this instance. I came out of the episode quite firmly convinced that fandom is insane and John is no more fallible than any parent I know (including the really good ones). At least about this incident. ;)

*shrug* YMMV, I guess. I mean, I hope I'd be able to ensure that my children understand my forgiveness, etc, but I also firmly believe in a child's scary ability to hide things from the parent and present a face that doesn't allow for mind-reading.

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

I think we are talking at crossed purposes here. And indeed, YMMV.

Perhaps it's an imperfect analogy to compare your parents--or my parents--(whom I have no doubt differed greatly from John Winchester on multiple levels) to the monster-hunting single father who left his nine-year-old in charge with a locked and loaded shotgun for protection. :-)

This just reads to me, from Dean's POV (because that's all we get), as "Dad doesn't forgive screw-ups, particularly if they endanger Sam." It's what led to Dean's deathbed soliloquy in AHBL . . . "I always let down the people I love. I guess that's what I'm good at." It's what led to Dean's selling his soul.

I came out of the episode quite firmly convinced that fandom is insane and John is no more fallible than any parent I know

Oh, I agree. 'Tis why I avoided John fic like the plague in what little fic I was reading at the time. Because if there's a way to villanize a parent, fandom will find a way to do it. (Remember Naomi Sandburg? And William Ellison?) I expected it of fandom, and I wanted to make my own decisions and draw my own conclusions. (It's also one of the many reasons I avoid spoilers, particularly those that have been spun by fandom.) But the fact that he's no more fallible than any parent still means he's fallible. But it doesn't make him "bad" or "evil." John did the best he could, which is all anyone can do. I like the character.

but I also firmly believe in a child's scary ability to hide things from the parent and present a face that doesn't allow for mind-reading.

I'm not blaming John for not being a mind-reader. Dean's not blaming John, either. But neither am I willing to say that John is completely faultless in Dean's inability to forgive himself, at least at this particular point in time. Dean's learning experience at this age was: I disobeyed Dad's orders, I did something for myself, Sammy almost got killed, I said I was sorry, Dad knows I'm sorry, I've lost his trust, and he isn't forgiving me.

Flash forward some 15ish odd years later, John disappears without a word, doesn't return Dean's phone calls, and Dean's only sure plan of action is, "Follow Dad's orders, no questions asked."

Yes, as an adult, Dean needs to realize John had faults and Dean isn't to blame for the rack and ruin around him, and forgive himself. And that's part of Dean's continuing character development, the development of his willingness to voice his doubts and disagreements about John. And I don't think John's love for his sons should ever be in question. (See my entry regarding "Shadow.")

But the Winchesters are a flawed, fallible group of men, ("We're not cursed. We just have our dark spots." "Our dark spots are pretty dark." "You're dark." ~Dean & Sam, "Nightmare"), each in their own way. For better or worse. It is what it is.

Oh, Winchesters.

At least, that's how I see it.

And now my brain hurts. I hope that made sense.

YMMV.

[andromakhe001.livejournal.com]

As I see it, it was up to John to dissuade Dean from feeling that way because he should have known. It doesn't take a mind reader to know that if you have yelled at a child like that, they will take it to heart.

John is the adult, he's the parent. It is up to him to make sure Dean doesn't feel that way. To take the time to talk it out with him at least one or twice. John NEVER mentioned it again, that in and of itself is a fault.

Something like that happens and the only thing John ever said about it was when he yelled at Dean in the aftermath? That's it?

If someone broke into a house and threatened some children, wouldn't we expect the parent to talk to those children for more than 30 seconds in the aftermath?

Because essentially that is what happened here, someone broke into their place of residence and threatened them and the only talking about it John did with Dean was to yell at him.

Because Dean didn't deserve to get yelled at like that. JOHN is the one who left them alone for 3 days. Dean should never have had that responsibility in the first place. It should never have been on his shoulders and so he did not deserve to get yelled at for "failing".

Dean didn't fail. Failure presumes that it was reasonable to believe Dean should have this responsibility and I don't believe it's reasonable to believe that a 9 year old can stay locked in a motel room alone with a 5 year old for 3 days without ever leaving.

It was unreasonable - even most adults would be hard pressed to do that. In fact an adult would be able to leave and take the five year old with them, which Dean was not supposed to do.

And plenty of them would walk across the parking lot while leaving a sleeping child in a locked room.

Think about it, JOHN left a 9 and 5 year old alone for 3 days and went MUCH further than the 100 yards across the parking lot Dean did when left Sam locked in the room.

So I'm failing to see where Dean failed at all. Dean succeeded in doing something that was well above the level of responsibility he should ever have had placed on him.

He succeeded better than John did. John put HIS OWN responsibility onto Dean's shoulders. Dean was doing what John SHOULD have been doing but wasn't.

From beginning to end it was John's fault, in my opinion and the only one who deserved to get yelled at was John. But John didn't, only Dean did.

Also, Dean's actions did not endanger Sam. The Shtriga would have come whether Dean was in that motel room or not. We know that because other children in the episode were targeted even though they had siblings nearby.

There is no guarantee that Dean would have heard the shtriga entering the bedroom or that the shtriga would not have targeted Dean.

In fact, if Dean had managed to fire off a shot and not gotten a kill immediately, very likely the shtriga simply would have turned his attention on Dean and possibly even ended up killing him.

John yells at Dean but what John seemed to be forgetting is that Dean was in just as much danger as Sam was. Dean was also a child, and Shtrigas target children.

AND that is what John is at fault for - at the very least for not apologizing to Dean for putting him in that position in the first place. That is why Dean blamed himself.

If John had done any of that - talked with Dean about it afterwards when he was no longer angry, etc done something which a reasonable parent would do in that kind of situation, Dean would not have believed John blamed him, would not have believed John looked at him differently.

It's not up to Dean to let John know, Dean was a kid. Kids are still learning about how to express themselves.

Think about it this way.

We know from In My Time of Dying that Dean was often the one comforting John throughout the years. John as much as admits Dean did pretty much all of the caretaking of himself, as well as Sam.

So Dean, as a young child, could take the time and make the effort to comfort John, to try and understand his feelings, to try and make things easier on him and to make him feel better.

But John, the adult, could not spare a little bit of time to do that for Dean after the shtriga incident?

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

This is a topic for which passions obviously run very deep. Those who love John love him with a passion; those who hate John hate him with a passion.

Your points regarding John as parent and Dean as child are well taken, & kind of what I was trying to say. I also see Izhi's point about children being very good at covering up their emotions, either knowingly refusing help when offered, or hiding their hurt so the parent doesn't see it.

Much of the life depicted for the Winchesters must be taken in the context of the characters. John is a hunter of evil monsters. He cannot take his young children with him when he hunts monsters. Dean assures John that he knows the drill, he can do as John says, he knows all their signals and codes. He knows which adults to call if John doesn't return. I'm not saying John was right in doing this, but within the context of the story we're given, it all makes an imperfect kind of sense. It doesn't make it right, but for the characters, it does make it "real."

Dean was doing what John SHOULD have been doing but wasn't.

Which is exactly what Dean vocalizes in DaLDoM. That's part of his ongoing character development.

Did Dean's absence endanger Sam? Considering the circumstances--the bedroom door was open in such a way that Dean could see Sam before he left, implying that Dean has been within eyeshot of Sam the entire time, and given that Dean was left with the rifle in case of an intruder, it's a huge responsibility to place on a child, but the intent was for Dean to shoot any intruder before it could do damage. An unrealistic expectation? Yes, but one John trusted Dean with, and one Dean claimed he could live up to. An imperfect situation. An unreasonable situation for a normal family. But one that all parties agreed to. And one, I suspect, that's not uncommon with families who live in constant danger.

Whether or not Dean failed at anything (unless it was a failure to follow John's directions. John left Dean with the admonition that it only takes one mistake) is not the point, really. The point is that Dean believes he failed--both his father and Sam--and nothing was done to change this perception. On that point, we agree.

The fact that John packed the boys up and took them to Pastor Jim (where they probably should have been to begin with) could indicate, too, that John knew he screwed up by leaving the boys alone.

Poor Dean was in a catch 22. It's not unreasonable to expect a person to go stir crazy being stuck in a motel room for three days. Neither is it unreasonable to expect a nine-year-old to obey his parent, particularly when said nine-year-old is far more responsible than the average child of the same age, and when said child assures said parent that he knows the drill, he can handle it.

I have seen children in the 8-12-year-old range take care of their infant and toddler siblings, only seeking out parents in case of an emergency (or diaper change). It was the norm in the community where I observed this, and to be expected (though I, as a middle class American, was surprised and impressed at the responsibility the older siblings demonstrated). The expectations placed on Dean were not normal for the average family, and as you say, per IMToD, John knows he fell short as a father in that regard. But these were the expectations as part of the Winchester clan.

I do think that, given what we're given in canon, it was at this point that Dean started to seriously doubt himself and his place. He blames himself for having drawn John away from the hunt, with the possible result of kids getting killed.

This is why I find it hard to get behind either hardline view, either pro-John or anti-John. Given the specific circumstances the characters find themselves in, I see it as mistakes were made on all fronts. Perhaps more on John's part than anyone's, but he wasn't evil or malicious. That's what makes these characters multi-layered and interesting and appealing.

I hope what I'm saying makes sense. For whatever reason, I don't like seeing the character of John--whom I believe really did love his boys--vilified, particularly when I don't think that was the writer's intent.

[andromakhe001.livejournal.com]

Well we can agree to disagree but I will say I do think it was the writers' intent. :) Eric Kripke called John "near psychopathic" and with an obsessive need for revenge in an interview and Sera Gamble said something like with a father like John it's no wonder Dean would need years of therapy. Even before Something Wicked or even Shadow had aired, early in Season 1, Kripke seemed to largely lay the blame for Dean's "screwed to Hell psyche" on his relationship with his father, on how John had treated him.

Not that John didn't love his kids, I'd never claim that, but it doesn't change that I do think the show has tried to tell us in no uncertain terms that John allowed his obsession to cause him to seriously neglect his children's needs. His obsession became more important than his love. His children became more of a symbol but, on a practical basis, they were not his kids anymore. Dean was more of a parent to Sam, on a practical day to day level, than John was and John started treating Dean less like a son and more like a soldier before he was in double digits.

Parentification is often considered one of the more damaging forms of neglect, psychologically it's ramifications can be devastating in adulthood, and John seriously parentified Dean.

[feliciakw.livejournal.com]

the show has tried to tell us in no uncertain terms that John allowed his obsession to cause him to seriously neglect his children's needs.

Indeed. John himself tells us that in "Dead Man's Blood." Which is my next ep to watch. More later. :-)

(That will also be the ep wherein I make mention of Dean finally standing up to John and calling him on decisions that he--Dean--thinks are bad ones. *hugs Dean*)

[leelust.livejournal.com]

This ep kills me every time i watch it. there's so much about their childhood, about Dean's issues and how less Sam knew about all that.

But where John drops the ball is when Dean says, "He never looked at me the same." Whether or not that's true on John's part, the important thing is that that is what Dean grew up with
Exactly. It doesn't matter for me if it was Dean's impression or real John's feelings. I just see a pattern. John ignored Dean's refuse to talk and let 4 years old child to deal with it and now he ingnored possible affect of that situation on Dean and again let him deal on his own. For me it's neglecting.