While I agree a great deal with your analysis of Sam, I do think that you do John and Dean a bit of discredit. One of the reasons I loved John Winchester's Journal was because it gave them valid motivation for wanting to keep Sam from college. Suddenly it wasn't just because Sam is supposed to be a hunter because that's the family business - Sam is supposed to be a hunter because things (and people) hunt Sam and he needs to be protected or be able to protect himself. I just finished recounting to a friend how Dean killed Anderson in 1991 for hunting Sam. As far as we know, Sam doesn't know any of this (which, imo, is a mistake - he might have been more amenable if he knew the whole picture), but that doesn't mean that John and Dean's hidden motivations are less valid for being hidden.
Do I think Sam should have gone to Stanford? Yes. Do I think that John and Dean had the right to freak out that he was not only leaving their protection but going to be living in one place for four years? Definitely.
I hope youj'll pardon the intrusion, but I think the point is that Sam *didn't* know. Dean wasn't in a position to tell Sam a lot of things, but John was. I think you're totally right that Sam would have been more amenable if he'd known everything. It's possible he might not have even gone to Stanford at all, and at least likely he would have bought into more of the training and hunting.
Which goes back to the disempowerment. We can give John credence, since we have all the info. But Sam couldn't, because John chose to conceal the truth or out-and-out lie. It doesn't mean John (and Dean) weren't entitled to their fears and freak outs or that their motivations weren't valid. But Sam wasn't able to see any of the above for what they were, like we can. Knowledge is a powerful thing.
I don't disagree with any of that. I do think that Sam was doing the best thing that he could. I do think it was a mistake for John not to share the information with Sam, although that action is integral to the formation of Sam's character.
However, I do think that we, as analysts, need to look at both sides of the coin. We do have the benefit of knowing both points of view and thus we can grant both side (Sam and John and Dean) leeway that they can't grant one another. It's a mistake to say that Sam is integrally selfish for leaving, but it's also a mistake for us to say that John and Dean are integrally selfish for not wanting him to go.
I never meant this to call John and Dean out for being selfish. As a viewer I understand each Winchester boy had his own good reasons for doing what they do; this was more to analyse the reasons behind why Sam does what he does, so I ccouldn't take what he didn't know into account.
For every hunter whose initiation into the world of hunting we know - John, Dean, Bobby, and Gordon - it was a violent attack by evil that turned their worlds upside-down and hunting became their way to fight back, like how someone that survives a violent crime takes self-defense classes. Hunting is their way of taking back control, of making sure they and others are never victims again.
This is an extremely interesting point. Then, can we assume that the first time we see Sam-the-hunter (in the proper sense of the word) is in season four, after he's lost Dean? Before that, he'd never lost something so essential, so important. No wonder he's acting more and more like John as time goes on...
I think so. In seasons one and two, Dean was the more active in terms of hunting because Sam was the intended target/victim of the YED and sort of just along for the ride (especially after the season one finale, when he let go of his Jessica vengeance). Now Sam has to come into his own as a hunter because the threat of going to Hell - and coming back from Hell - had made Dean more of the target/victim. I think losing Dean was for Sam a lot like losing Mary was for John and, well, Sam is his father's son...
It wasn’t a monster that destroyed Sam’s world - it was hunting.
This is a fascinating insight into Wee!Sam. I'd never thought of it in quite this way. And then there's the later flip side when Sam does get the ... err, more "normal" hunter's induction into the life, when he had to watch Dean get ripped to shreds in front of him.
Your theory actually takes some of the sting out of Sam's arguments in Shadows. (For me anyway.) I'm speaking of when he tells Dean that he doesn't want things to go back to the way they were. If Sam perceived his childhood as one of 'disempowerment' then it is no wonder that he wouldn't want to return to that.
It's very possible that Dean and Sam were having a discussion about two totally different subjects, without realizing it.
Comments 41
Do I think Sam should have gone to Stanford? Yes. Do I think that John and Dean had the right to freak out that he was not only leaving their protection but going to be living in one place for four years? Definitely.
Reply
Which goes back to the disempowerment. We can give John credence, since we have all the info. But Sam couldn't, because John chose to conceal the truth or out-and-out lie. It doesn't mean John (and Dean) weren't entitled to their fears and freak outs or that their motivations weren't valid. But Sam wasn't able to see any of the above for what they were, like we can. Knowledge is a powerful thing.
Reply
However, I do think that we, as analysts, need to look at both sides of the coin. We do have the benefit of knowing both points of view and thus we can grant both side (Sam and John and Dean) leeway that they can't grant one another. It's a mistake to say that Sam is integrally selfish for leaving, but it's also a mistake for us to say that John and Dean are integrally selfish for not wanting him to go.
Reply
Thanks for your reply!
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
This is an extremely interesting point. Then, can we assume that the first time we see Sam-the-hunter (in the proper sense of the word) is in season four, after he's lost Dean? Before that, he'd never lost something so essential, so important. No wonder he's acting more and more like John as time goes on...
Reply
Thanks for the comment!
Reply
This is a fascinating insight into Wee!Sam. I'd never thought of it in quite this way. And then there's the later flip side when Sam does get the ... err, more "normal" hunter's induction into the life, when he had to watch Dean get ripped to shreds in front of him.
Reply
Thanks for commenting!
Reply
It's very possible that Dean and Sam were having a discussion about two totally different subjects, without realizing it.
Great meme.
Reply
Thanks for the comment!
Reply
Leave a comment