Your Brother's Perspective

[itsnotmymind]

I haven't done a lot of reading of SPN meta and fics as of late, but during the time that I did there was a recurring assumption among many fans: Sam didn't understand what Dean did for them while they were growing up, and Sam needs to understand that.

Now, I only watched through the end of S10, but on the show I watched, Sam had a very good idea of just what Dean went through, and what Dean had done for him. True - he didn't see it at the beginning. In S1, Sam grumbled, "Dad never treated you like that. You were perfect. He was all over my case."

But ten episodes later, Sam and Dean fought a shtriga and Sam came face-to-face with the reality of his brother's upbringing. From then on, Sam was repeatedly confronted with the difficulties Dean experienced growing up. Something Wicked, Dark Side of the Moon, and Bad Boys deal most explicitly with these issues. And Sam learns from these experiences: "You know, I've really given you a lot of crap, for always following Dad's orders," he says in Something Wicked. "But I know why you do it." In DSotM, he tells his brother, “I just never realized how long you’ve been cleaning up Dad’s messes."

Sam certainly doesn't downplay what Dean has done for him. "You sacrifice everything for me," he told Dean at the end of S2. Near the end of S10, he told Castiel that he owed Dean everything.

If one of John Winchester's sons has an idealized vision of what his brother's childhood was like, it's Dean. In Dean's dream in DaLDoM, Dean's dream-self claims that John doted on Sam, and that he loved Sam (implying he didn't love Dean). This of course is immediately contradicted a few minutes later in the dream by Dean insisting that John was never there for Sam, but there is no hint that Dean notices the contradiction. As far as I can tell, Dean in Brother's Keeper still believes his father doted upon his brother.

Even when Dean acknowledges that John wasn't there for Sam, he makes another inaccurate statement: Claiming he, Dean, was always there for Sam. In fact, flashback episodes and discussions of their childhood give us plenty of examples of Dean not being there for Sam.

The problem here stems from Dean's warped evaluation of his own ability to parent Sam. John's expectation that Dean take on some of the parenting of Sam's was unrealistic to the point of being abusive - towards both of his son. A traumatized child cannot parent another child only four years younger.

But Dean usually seems to look back on his caretaker role as a success. When he does acknowledge mistakes (Something Wicked, PPMM), he takes responsibility for those mistakes as if he had made them as an adult. Dean's inability to see his attempt to parent Sam as a child's endeavor is harmful both to himself (since he places unrealistic weight and expectations on himself, just as his father placed on him), and to Sam (because as long as the idea that Dean was capable of being a good parent is a reasonable one, there's no way that Dean can recognize how difficult it was for Sam to grow up in his care).

On a Doylist level, it's also true that the viewers are forced to acknowledge that Sam's initial view of Dean's role in the family was wrong, while Dean's accurate view of Sam is never explicitly challenged.. Something Wicked and Bad Boys explicitly repudiate the idea that John saw Dean as "perfect". Whereas the idea of Sam as doted upon, though inconsistent with what we know, this is never explicitly addressed after DaLDoM. And I think this is why so many fans continued to hold the belief that it was true.

Comments

[supernutjapan.livejournal.com]

I never saw John as dotting on Sam. But in relation to your previous post on how Sam would try to get John's attention by challenging him all the time, it is obvious that John spent more time worrying about and trying to handle Sam and Dean probably saw that as John loving Sam more than him. I feel it represents a pretty typical family and brother dynamic.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

I agree, I don't get where the fandom attitude comes from that Sam doesn't appreciate the sacrifices that Dean made, as you say there are many examples of Sam showing appreciation for what Dean did for him growing up. I definitely see it as being more the case that Dean is the one who lacks understanding on what a bad idea it was for him to be forced into the parental role with Sam. Whenever it does come up how unhappy Sam was back then, Dean always seemed to make it personal somehow, and see it as Sam rejecting Dean. He never tried to understand why Sam might have wanted to run away "under my watch" (Dark Side Of The Moon), or why Sam might have wanted to play football with other kids instead of learning hunting tactics (Bugs) etc

I think that Dean was always focused on John wanting to protect Sammy's innocence, so the way he saw it was that Sam was the more protected and valued son for that reason, but there's never any indication in canon that John favoured Sam. He always came across as frustrated and not really getting Sam, while appreciating how Dean would put family first, and that he cared about hunting and avenging Mary's death as much as John did. As you said earlier, in John's final scene he has a really touching speech where he truly seems to get how much Dean sacrificed for the family and makes it clear that it never went unnoticed, while his most personal words for Sam are that he doesn't get why Sam wants to keep fighting with him all the time

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

I agree. Getting into speculation territory, I think Dean got most of John's direct attention when they were really little. This led to Sam acting up, while Dean remained the obedient son. John was already stressed to the max, so he focused on the problem child while taking the well-behaved child for granted - not an uncommon dynamic, although not one that is fair to either child.

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

Yep. I also think one of the reasons Dean took it as a personal rejection when Sam ran away or played soccer is that it put Dean in a position where he had to choose between Sam and John, because John would come down on Sam for doing that kind of thing. Dean wanted his father and brother getting along and his family together - and it's easier to blame little brother for rebelling than Dad for making unfair rules.

[supernutjapan.livejournal.com]

I've experienced raising 3 children of my own, and I know first hand how two children can react totally differently to the same attention. I also know that it is impossible to raise two children of different ages completely the same way. I don't think Sam acted up because he thought Dean was getting more attention than him. I think he was just more honest with John about his unhappiness as the second child, while Dean held all his wants in as a first child usually does.

My second son Julian is 1 1/2 years younger than Alex and when he was born, I found an immediate difference in the two children. Julian was LOUD. He cried very loudly, often scaring Alex. And when I put them to bed, while I had always laid down with Alex to put him to sleep until then, I now had to stand up and put (the loudly crying) Julian to sleep before lying down with Alex. Alex learned to gaman (in Japanese - persevere, or restrain his own needs) until Julian was asleep. Alex had to learn to gaman in many other things once his younger brother was born because a baby takes precedence over an older child. Even now that is true. Alex is the responsible one, while Julian is the one that does what he wants - although that changed a bit when the youngest, Audrey was born :P. There is nothing bad about either of those personalities.

I've since heard that many other families had the same experience - first that the second son was louder, and also that they were more "my-pace" : doing things at their own speed and also taking advantage of their parent's attention to act a bit more selfish. The older kid understands the parents difficulties and tries to help.

That's just how it is. It's not that the parents are unfair in the way they deal with their kids. The kids naturally just act differently and because of the age difference as well, the parents have to deal with them differently.

One thing that may have been significantly lacking in the Winchester family was praise. And maybe if Dean had been praised more, he may have not grown up thinking that dad loved Sam more. But what do you think of that comment by Dean that he was the one that always got the extra cookie? Do you think he did? in which case, maybe he was praised, but as a kid, seeing dad pay more attention to the problem child, he still thought that dad loved Sam more.

Kids often think their parents are unfair - until they become parents themselves. And parents know that too because they were young once and felt the same way. I was a first child, so I know how Alex and Dean feel in a sense - Although I was an only child until 12, I quickly learned to put my needs on the back burner to help my parents and protect my younger brothers and sister. But I also feel for Julian, especially now that Audrey is there under him. He has to gaman for his sister now. Again, it's not the parents fault. It's a combination of family situation and the childrens' personality.

[frelling-tralk.livejournal.com]

But what do you think of that comment by Dean that he was the one that always got the extra cookie? Do you think he did? in which case, maybe he was praised, but as a kid, seeing dad pay more attention to the problem child, he still thought that dad loved Sam more.

I never got the impression that Dean was praised much, it was more that John just expected him to behave and always do as he was told. I could see John maybe playing the boys against one another at times though, saying that Dean should get the extra cookie or treat as he knows how to follow orders better than Sam does. Sam obviously remembers it as John seeing Dean as the 'perfect' son when they're discussing their childhood in Bugs, and Dean doesn't necessarily argue with that, he just defends their father when Sam complained about how much John would come down on him. But meanwhile Dean feels taken for granted at how much John worries about Dean needing to look after Sammy, so he assumes that it's the babied little brother that John really loves the most, no matter how hard Dean tries to be the good son.

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

No one is saying that children should be treated identically. I am not a parent, but I certainly remember how different my sister and I were growing up. Despite being pretty close in age. My parents did not treat us the same, but they did make an effort to give us both a lot of attention, the kind of attention that was based on our individual personalities. When we thought they were being unfair, they would listen to us. For example, when I complained about the attention my sister got for doing sports, they pointed out that my passions, like writing, were quieter. They made sure to provide me with books on writing and encouragement.

However, I have seen many families, especially dysfunctional families, where children are put into roles from a very young age. One child is viewed as being "good", while the other is "bad". One is "stupid", while the other is "smart". One might be the favorite.

Parents can also use a child's personality as an excuse to treat children differently in ways that are wildly unfair. I've known more than one family where the friendly or more rambunctious child got attention, while the quieter, more reserved child was emotionally neglected. In this case, the neglect was based on the children's personalities, but that doesn't make it the slightest bit better.

I said nothing about Dean getting an extra cookie - or even extra praise. I'm speculating based on limited evidence that he got more attention when they are little. I think John interacted with Dean more, and was more aware of who Dean was and what was going on in Dean's life.

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

I actually disagree about Dean not being praised. The only episode we have where we see John interacted with his sons while they are still children is Something Wicked. In that episode, John agrees with Dean when Dean insisted that he's "not stupid" ("I know you're not"), and proudly tells Dean, "That's my man" when Dean says he will shoot first and ask questions later. The problem, of course, is that this praise is based on Dean living up to the role of being a "man"...and when things go horribly wrong, Dean gets left with the blame, too.

I interpret "Watch out for Sammy" as John putting some of Sam's parenting on Dean because he couldn't deal, but I think Dean saw it as John telling him that Sam was more important.

[supernutjapan.livejournal.com]

All I was trying to say is that I don't think Sam and Dean grew up the way they did because John was "unfair" in the way he spent time with them, as you said in your reply.

The extra cookie question was just something I wondered what you thought about. I know that you didn't mention it.

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

And I still consider it unfair. Sorry, I misread the cookie question. Also, if I came across as cranky that was more about work, politics (which seems far too normative a word for what happened in my country), and work.

[supernutjapan.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry the election and work have been stressing you out :( It's been scary watching the election here too. Mostly because we really have no idea what is going to happen next.

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

I really didn't think he could win. And he didn't win the popular vote. But the fact that so many, many people in my country voted for him, decided they wanted bigotry, or didn't care enough to vote against it. It's surreal.

[supernutjapan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it is pretty crazy, both that he won because of the crazy voting system and because there are obviously a lot of hidden Trump supporters - maybe some people who are just pretending to be politically correct in front of others, but also probably people who are just so desperate for change, they'd vote for anyone who promised it. A lot of very unhappy people just like England and the Philippines. Just hope it all doesn't lead to a 3rd World War.

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

I read some articles where Trump supporters explained their reasons for voting for him, because I want to understand. And funnily enough, none of the people in the articles claimed to support his racism and sexism. One supporter said they "certainly" did not support bigotry. Another said she would spank her sons if they talked about women like Trump does. And yet they voted a man like this to the highest office in their country - that'll give a stronger message to that woman's sons that whether she spanks them or not.

And I'm just wondering, do these people actually think Trump won't act on his bigotry? Or do they share his ideals, and just don't want to admit that to the media?

I get the impression from what they say that these people voted for Trump because they were unhappy with the status quo and have a vague idea that Trump's background as a businessman means he has the skills to improve the economy.

[supernutjapan.livejournal.com]

these people voted for Trump because they were unhappy with the status quo and have a vague idea that Trump's background as a businessman means he has the skills to improve the economy.

Exactly. And if that is the case for most people, then Trump's bigotry will hopefully not affect you as much as it could. I was also very disappointed in hearing how some Clinton supporters were being violent toward the Trump supporters in the riots. What does that say about Clinton supporters aye? But I guess there are always people who just want a reason to be violent.

We'll just have to see how/what Trump tries to do in the next four years.

[itsnotmymind.livejournal.com]

Clinton has not incited violence the way Trump has, so I'm not taking it as a reflection on her or her campaign.

But the thing is, Trump supports mostly either: 1. Support his racism, or 2. Don't care. You know that line about how evil exists because good people do nothing? People supporting Trump for non-racist reasons is not reassuring. Because it means they don't care enough to do anything when less pleasant Trump people decide to make bad things happen.

But in many ways, Trump is a wild card. People think he's "authentic", but he's not. He's a liar who presents a persona that seems authentic. And I have no clue what his aims are. He's even more guarded than Clinton - he's just a better actor.