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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 10:00 pm (UTC)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.