lookatthesefreakinghipsters:

Does anyone else find it a little sad that Dean is the only Winchester to identify the “family business” as “saving people, hunting things,” where saving people is the first priority?  It wasn’t John’s priority.  He was on a vendetta against the “thing” that killed Mary and anything evil that got in his way got ganked.  Saving people was a happy by-product of his true aim: revenge. 

After Dean gives his now-famous line, Sam counters with “…I gotta find Jessica’s killer.  It’s the only thing I can think about.”  For Sam, saving people didn’t come first, like John, hunting was a means to an end, in the earliest seasons.

But for Dean, a character whose entire sense of self had been sublimated into a need to save and protect others, “saving people” came first.  His need to save everyone, especially in those earlier seasons, came directly from what he believed his father wanted to achieve as a hunter.  He believed that John’s goals were to save people, first and foremost.  And so, Dean believed if he just saved enough people, if he protected Sammy well enough, John would be proud of him.  And if Dean saved people, other children wouldn’t have to go through losing a parent to monsters and demons like he did.  Other families wouldn’t be torn apart at the hands of evil.

But Dean could never make John proud by saving people, because that’s not what John valued.  And there is no way to save everyone, so Dean could only ever fail in his goal of saving people.  Dean’s tragedy is that even his laudable traits are turned against him, increasing his self-loathing through guilt and blame for his failure to meet an impossible standard.  No wonder it’s such a crushing burden.

Dean knows John knows he killed Azazel. So if that’s supposed to be the metric, then he’s a winner. But in the end, John gave up on revenge, and there’s no reason he needed to save enough people just to get to the YED and the Colt. I will never believe the John who said “Hey, can you boys take out the Woman in White? I’m avenging over here, so I’m busy.” didn’t also value the lives of innocents.

No, it’s not what made him into a hunter, but he was a man (a soldier, a leader, a husband, a father, and most sadly a lonely son) before his wife died, and before he killed his first non-human monster. He couldn’t have been the hunter he was and raised boys who saved the world time and again without being more than just revenge. Maybe Dean would have been an EMT without him, and Sam a civil rights lawyer instead of pool-hustling serial killers of evil, but it all has value. 

(Source: fallencassbutt, via allonsy-castiel)

spent-it-on-ammo:

tom-sits-like-a-whore:

What John Winchester should’ve read. Would’ve saved a lot of trouble.

spent-it-on-ammo:

tom-sits-like-a-whore:

What John Winchester should’ve read. Would’ve saved a lot of trouble.

(via nothingbeforesam)

The feels this gives me are immense. Dean got enough rope to learn how to tie his own knots, and John is looking at something he never has before. Dean being a leader. I don’t think he second guessed himself as the guy in charge much after this, and there’s a point at which it’s not “big brother” stuff anymore. Bobby followed his lead, Cas followed his lead, they deferred to his GED and give ‘em hell attitude, and he’s been a solid leader (even when he goes with someone else’s plan) ever since.

(Also, jesus christ, how pretty is he in that last GIF????)

(Source: jensens14thfreckle, via nothingbeforesam)

the-fandoms-are-cool:

maplemooseandshotguns:

hermione-j-e-a-n-granger:

heartslogos:

brakes:

thepoundcakeofthebakervilles:

image

image

Could you not.

can u not

Sit in a corner and think about what you just did

IF I COULD MEET ANYONE IN THE WORLD I WOULD MEET LITTLE DEAN WINCHESTER AND I WOULD HUG HIM SO TIGHT AND TELL HIM HE DOES EVERYTHING GREAT AND THAT HE IS SO SO STRONG AND THAT SAM GOES TO COLLEGE SOMEDAY THAT’S HOW AWESOME HE RAISED HIS LITTLE BROTHER

In sixth grade (I can’t work out what form that is—my last year of prep school?) my guns didn’t use gunpowder, and I got in trouble for aiming my bow and arrow at people. There’s got to be a middle ground between my youth and his, right? With lots and lots of fighting but no risk of kiddie life and limb?

Because every time Sam says he needs to give this life up, all I can think is “Selfish bastard! How dare you waste such a chance???”

But my issues are well documented, and I’m pretty sure John never rewarded Dean for normal boy things, but he damned well knew when he’d mastered a new weapon because you don’t build an eager soldier any other way. Dean got rewards. They’re just not ones Child Protective Services would agree on. Look at that smile…

(Seriously, though—Dean does not read like a son who had a father lost to him in alcohol. Sam and Dean read like sons whose value system was more platoon than playground. But Dean is an exceptionally deft alcoholic, and I would only assume that John was similarly effective yet imbibing to model this behaviour.)

(Source: mr-fassbennder, via allonsy-castiel)

a-ckleholic:

winschester:

1.02 - 1.21

No John why the hell should your boys finish what YOU started? Why the hell would you want that for the- oh, wait a second, hahahaha, I just forgot what a sh*t father you are. My bad, haha, carry on.

There are key differences between a project and operational tasks. A project is a unique defined set of finite goals that are to be accomplished, time bound, with a beginning and an end. John wants to avenge Mary, and to kill the thing that is threatening the boys, especially Sam.  This is specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time bound. This is a project.

Saving people and hunting things is an ongoing, repeated process of culling the dark nasties that snack on people in the night, and does not stop. You have neither ever saved all the people nor hunted all the things. Dean is in operations.

And, at least as far as we’re shown of John, Dean is wrong. Naive little SirGirl that I am, I feel that John wanted his kids to reach that final goal in time to do something else with their lives. The house, the education, the T-ball, the beer with the guys, the wife that doesn’t die on the ceiling. I don’t doubt that for a second.

John raised his sons to be heroes and save people because he’s a the kind of guy that saves strangers—not every soldier that comes back from war can walk back into another fray, but aside from the goal of ending the threat to his kids, John saved and taught them to save people who couldn’t fight for themselves. Continuing with that is a noble goal for Dean to have, but where does the text tell us that John was committing anyone to that life choice?

Clearly John is crap at delegation and reporting status to his team, resulting in massive scope creep. 

Hands up everyone that’s been in project management training all week. Yeah, that makes sense.

(via allonsy-castiel)

as long as we’re alive, there’s always hope

Dead? Also hope. That’s what separates you from the Campbells.

(Source: jaredbottoms, via castiel-angel-of-the-lord)

Is John more of a douche in Dean/Castiel stories than he is in the rest of the ficverse? I kind of hope so—that my OTP sadly landed me somewhere without perspective, but if I were to broaden my horizons I’d see a complicated man that loves his sons and wants to help people and save lives, although he’s severely depressed and traumatised by events that tok place up to twenty years ago.
Because I like that guy. I like reading about that guy. I like thinking of the complications and panics he had when he found himself a single father. Of the guilt he felt when Dean stepped forward (my head canon says it is so) and tried to make his Dad feel better, and take care of his brother, because he let him, because by the time he might have done something to stop it, it was too late—it was too easy to continue down the path of obsession to avenge his wife and make sure his sons didn’t fall prey to the same mysterious evil that had stolen their mother from them while they were yet so young.
He’s not perfect, he’s not a role model, and he’s not babysitting my putative kids. But he’s fascinating, brilliant (remember how ASH was impressed by his tracking and pattern-finding skills? ASH?), fierce, passionate, devoted, and more than a little crazy. I definitely want him on my team, and we definitely go out drinking more than once.
Oh, good lord, Parenting 101 was never more sorely needed (shotgun? 10 year old? DUDE), but he walked a difficult path. He *chose* a difficult path, but he chose it feeling that any other path would not be doing either his living or his dead family fair.
He drank, and he raged, and he might have hit his kids. He was draconian—a harsh taskmaster with high expectations of obedience and not challenge. He was too shortsighted to see that Dean fell too quickly into step just behind him, and to see why Sam refused to. But he was proud of his university-attending son, and in the moments before he made the same stupid decision everyone in his family ended up at least trying to make, he realised what a marvel of a son he also had in Dean, and that he’d done wrong by him too.
His wrong saved a lot of lives, though. Dean knows that better than anyone, as he nurses the self-worth issues that were no doubt brought into full bloom by a father cum commanding officer. And Dean will make that choice again and again, to make similar sacrifices, and to keep saving people, and even Sam who wants out of the game reached a point of understanding with John, a point of love, where he could look him in the eyes, even though it wasn’t the man he had known, and say that he loved him.
I wish fandom loved him more, at least the corners of it I travel in. I don’t believe we’re seeing errors in Sam and Dean’s eyes when they begin to understand their father better, having gotten out from underneath his iron thumb.
He did always love them, for what that’s worth. He loved them all, and he contributed to fine men, even if he didn’t play ball with them.

Is John more of a douche in Dean/Castiel stories than he is in the rest of the ficverse? I kind of hope so—that my OTP sadly landed me somewhere without perspective, but if I were to broaden my horizons I’d see a complicated man that loves his sons and wants to help people and save lives, although he’s severely depressed and traumatised by events that tok place up to twenty years ago.

Because I like that guy. I like reading about that guy. I like thinking of the complications and panics he had when he found himself a single father. Of the guilt he felt when Dean stepped forward (my head canon says it is so) and tried to make his Dad feel better, and take care of his brother, because he let him, because by the time he might have done something to stop it, it was too late—it was too easy to continue down the path of obsession to avenge his wife and make sure his sons didn’t fall prey to the same mysterious evil that had stolen their mother from them while they were yet so young.

He’s not perfect, he’s not a role model, and he’s not babysitting my putative kids. But he’s fascinating, brilliant (remember how ASH was impressed by his tracking and pattern-finding skills? ASH?), fierce, passionate, devoted, and more than a little crazy. I definitely want him on my team, and we definitely go out drinking more than once.

Oh, good lord, Parenting 101 was never more sorely needed (shotgun? 10 year old? DUDE), but he walked a difficult path. He *chose* a difficult path, but he chose it feeling that any other path would not be doing either his living or his dead family fair.

He drank, and he raged, and he might have hit his kids. He was draconian—a harsh taskmaster with high expectations of obedience and not challenge. He was too shortsighted to see that Dean fell too quickly into step just behind him, and to see why Sam refused to. But he was proud of his university-attending son, and in the moments before he made the same stupid decision everyone in his family ended up at least trying to make, he realised what a marvel of a son he also had in Dean, and that he’d done wrong by him too.

His wrong saved a lot of lives, though. Dean knows that better than anyone, as he nurses the self-worth issues that were no doubt brought into full bloom by a father cum commanding officer. And Dean will make that choice again and again, to make similar sacrifices, and to keep saving people, and even Sam who wants out of the game reached a point of understanding with John, a point of love, where he could look him in the eyes, even though it wasn’t the man he had known, and say that he loved him.

I wish fandom loved him more, at least the corners of it I travel in. I don’t believe we’re seeing errors in Sam and Dean’s eyes when they begin to understand their father better, having gotten out from underneath his iron thumb.

He did always love them, for what that’s worth. He loved them all, and he contributed to fine men, even if he didn’t play ball with them.

keepcalmandbringpie:

ita:

I’m not looking for an argument about the choices John made raising his children. He’s not exactly who I’d call to babysit toddlers, or anything. But why do so many AUs have him a bitter old drunk who dies in some petty, horrible, and relieving way? Yeah, I believe in a tradition of Winchester alcoholism and inability to share emotionally, but we have some pretty clear canon facts: John cast aside a lifelong vendetta by handing himself over to the target of his quest, the murderer of his wife to save Dean’s life. He manages to stutter out a constipated apology before he makes a deal with hell, where he then hies off to, and survives more torture than Dean managed to, and then was one of the spirits that clawed their way out at which point he saves Dean’s life again and allows the family to put that particular mission to rest, perhaps not knowing how much more intricate his sons had learnt it was since his death.

So every time I read a vicious, abusive, homophobic, physically absent John who evinces *no love* for his family and drinks his way to cirrhosis or wrapping Truckzilla around a tree, I have to wonder where so many people were when John made the same sort of stupid-assed twistedly-noble deal that his wife and son did, and that Sam got himself in trouble attempting to compensate for having failed. He wasn’t the first one in the family to do so, but you know what? THEY ALL DID IT FOR LOVE.

So when I read so many Sirs who don’t seem to love their kids, who are unrelenting damage to Sam and Dean, instead of loving too much and making mistakes, it makes me sad. I wish there were a tag for asshole!John so I couldn’t get enamoured with a story, and then in chapter three learn how relieved Dean secretly was when John drowned in his own puke after leaving them to starve way too many times. Jesus.

He’s not the best but he is FAR from the worst. People have to find someone to blame. Demons aren’t a good enough scapegoat I guess.

I like the complexity of Supernatural. I like Dean as crying maternal figure/gun toting badass who’s got an angel-kill notched on his belt. I like the hulking behemoth that is Sam, who leads with his emotions and his gigantic mind, but will fuck up anything in order to keep strangers safe. John was not a good father much of the time. Which makes it hard to call him a good man, maybe. But he loved his wife (So, they argued. They’re grownups, in a relationship. Happens.) He loved her so hard it stripped part of him away when she died. I think he made the wrong protect-the-kids decision—but I am clear that he was making a sober and sane decision to make the hard choices to keep his sons safe while he’s helping random strangers go home to his loved ones inbetween clues. He’s not blottoed out of his mind scratching through his tighty whities and he drinks and smokes through the welfare money month after month.

That’s nowhere no how John. He was a fierce and principled man, and that’s precisely why he made the mistake of raising them like soldiers and putting too much on them too young—to save themselves and other people. He could only see two things to do—avenge Mary, and kill as many evil supernatural sons of bitches as he could on his way out.

I bet they’d both enjoy kicking back with a beer and chatting with their old man now. I think they’ve each gotten their own sort of “past it”. Sam in And The Song Remains The Same misted me up.

Domineering, overbearing, a harsh taskmaster, and a demanding judge, yes, he’s all that—but that’s involved in your kid’s lives. Not their PTA meetings, sure. But you can’t raise soldiers without raising them. Somehow, I believe, the lunches were getting made and the school slips were getting signed, so John went ahead and taught them things kids (hell, most people) shouldn’t know—because he felt this weight had fallen upon them from that night. Not even knowing how many different ways this was actually their birthright.

Weirdly, in a way, he did just what Sampa would have wanted for his bloodline, without eve knowing it, even though I imagine parent John and Samuel would have gotten on like a house on fire—with people trapped inside. As in, devastation and loss of life.

(via )

I’m not looking for an argument about the choices John made raising his children. He’s not exactly who I’d call to babysit toddlers, or anything. But why do so many AUs have him a bitter old drunk who dies in some petty, horrible, and relieving way? Yeah, I believe in a tradition of Winchester alcoholism and inability to share emotionally, but we have some pretty clear canon facts: John cast aside a lifelong vendetta by handing himself over to the target of his quest, the murderer of his wife to save Dean’s life. He manages to stutter out a constipated apology before he makes a deal with hell, where he then hies off to, and survives more torture than Dean managed to, and then was one of the spirits that clawed their way out at which point he saves Dean’s life again and allows the family to put that particular mission to rest, perhaps not knowing how much more intricate his sons had learnt it was since his death.

So every time I read a vicious, abusive, homophobic, physically absent John who evinces *no love* for his family and drinks his way to cirrhosis or wrapping Truckzilla around a tree, I have to wonder where so many people were when John made the same sort of stupid-assed twistedly-noble deal that his wife and son did, and that Sam got himself in trouble attempting to compensate for having failed. He wasn’t the first one in the family to do so, but you know what? THEY ALL DID IT FOR LOVE.

So when I read so many Sirs who don’t seem to love their kids, who are unrelenting damage to Sam and Dean, instead of loving too much and making mistakes, it makes me sad. I wish there were a tag for asshole!John so I couldn’t get enamoured with a story, and then in chapter three learn how relieved Dean secretly was when John drowned in his own puke after leaving them to starve way too many times. Jesus.

leupagus:

eveningowl:

 #want to know why i love this? #and this is going to sound horrible and traumatizing #but i love it because you’re not saying that the monsters aren’t real #you’re saying that there’s ways to get the better of them #there’s nothing worse than telling a child that something doesn’t exist #even the bad things#because that’s when they begin to doubt #and doubt is the main killer of imagination #so rather than saying ‘the monsters won’t get you because they don’t exist’ #you’re saying ‘i learned how to defeat the monsters and i think you’re old enough to learn as well’ #just a thought



This is straight up seven up the best, because yes, exactly. Chesterton had a great line - fairytales are more than true, not because they tell us that dragons are real, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten. And I think for kids, that’s waaaaay more important than hearing “there’s no such thing as monsters.”
For example, when I was six and convinced there was a monster under my bed, my parents let me sleep with a baseball bat.

“When I told Dad I was scared of the thing in my closet, he gave me a .45!”
“Well, what was he supposed to do? “
“I was *nine* years old! He was supposed to say “don’t be afraid of the dark!” “
“Don’t be afraid of the dark? What are you, kidding me? Of course you should be afraid of the dark. You know what’s out there!”
Done and dusted, parenting the Winchester way.

leupagus:

eveningowl:

 

This is straight up seven up the best, because yes, exactly. Chesterton had a great line - fairytales are more than true, not because they tell us that dragons are real, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten. And I think for kids, that’s waaaaay more important than hearing “there’s no such thing as monsters.”

For example, when I was six and convinced there was a monster under my bed, my parents let me sleep with a baseball bat.

“When I told Dad I was scared of the thing in my closet, he gave me a .45!”
“Well, what was he supposed to do? “
“I was *nine* years old! He was supposed to say “don’t be afraid of the dark!” “
“Don’t be afraid of the dark? What are you, kidding me? Of course you should be afraid of the dark. You know what’s out there!”

Done and dusted, parenting the Winchester way.

(Source: godheadcomplex)

deancanhuntmedown:

yes!! <33333


Hee.

deancanhuntmedown:

yes!! <33333

Hee.

(via catvonawesome)

this is war.

Jo, not civilian. Otherwise? Pretty much perfect.

(via soultohostt-deactivated20121027)