John is willing to sacrifice his boys' innocence and freedom in service to his own need for vengeance,

Eh, I'd argue this. John's rationale has a lot to do with protecting his sons from an evil that no one else recognizes. I agree that he sacrificed some of their innocence and their integration into normal society in order to do that, and he clearly told them it was all about vengeance. But if you want to train your sons to protect themselves, you don't tell them about the Big Scary Evil Thing that you suspect is coming to get them; instead you make them the hunters instead.

John had his problems, but I don't think he privileged revenge over protecting his sons.

Eastern time: Amy, Askye, me, anybody else?

Funny you should call yourself chopped liver, when clearly I am the chopped liver. ::cries::

(((Jen))) Sorry, dumpling. I'm old, and in need of more caffeine. You are not chopped liver. I will, however, try to stop calling you food.

OK, all better now!

So there's actually little basis for comparison between the two sacrifices.

For the most part, I would agree with you and your spicy brains, though I do think both Buffy and Dean were doing the only thing possible for them to do, largely based on what they saw as their duty. Both Buffy and Dean had made it clear before that point that saving their sibling was the one and only thing they really cared about. Buffy was willing to sacrifice the world in her attempt to save Dawn from Glory, even though it went against her training (as represented by Giles), and Dean had made it clear over and over again that protecting Sam was what he did, with everything else, even his own life, coming a far distant second. (Like Buffy, some of Dean's choices, especially choosing John's life over killing the YED, went against his training as represented by John)

Buffy was able to both save Dawn and save the world, and her duty as the slayer wouldn't let her do anything else, but I think she would have done the same if the world was taken out of the equation. Dean didn't have that option, but then his duty had never been to save the world. Instead, it was to protect Sam, to be a good soldier, and then to help as many individuals as he could. Saving the world never entered into it, for Dean.

Nicole! ::hugs you hard::

Where the analogy between Buffy's leap and Dean's deal breaks down is that Buffy was giving up her life to save Dawn and the world--or at least this dimension, whereas Dean was giving up not just his life but his soul to reverse something which had already happened.

Oh, good point.

But if you want to train your sons to protect themselves, you don't tell them about the Big Scary Evil Thing that you suspect is coming to get them; instead you make them the hunters instead.

I'll still argue that he could have done that in one place, especially since his quest for YED branched off time and again into hunts for other demons, and demons that other hunters could have handled. Bobyy = no kids. Caleb = no kids. Pastor Jim = stays in one place even when doing his part.

I get not shielding them from the truth -- especially a lethal, terrifying truth -- but John's need to do the job overshadowed his sons' *other* needs (other being anything not having to do with learning the skills of the hunt), needlessly, I think.

Im my world, even when you're doing good and banishing the bogeyman, you don't leave an eight-year-old alone with a four-year-old and them BLAME HIM when something scary gets in.

And I say this, oddly enough, loving John a lot.

you don't leave an eight-year-old alone with a four-year-old and then BLAME HIM

That moment does bother me. It is definitely not the way I would have parented either child at that moment. But I think John's agenda was still keeping both of them alive. And keeping Dean hyper-aware, reinforcing his belief that Sam was the precious one and Dean was responsible for him, was what John though his best bet was at doing that.

I don't agree. But having just this weekend discussed parenting issues with the man I'm married to, I have to admit that I don't have a window into how a male parent's mind works.

you don't leave an eight-year-old alone with a four-year-old and then BLAME HIM

I have this whole disjointed post in my head about how anger is basically just fear Gone Bad and about how hunters can't really weep or cower when they're scared so their only other option is anger. Oh, and about how Sam is able to be more sensitive since he was shielded and protected (to some degree) while John and Dean were just thrown into the thick of it all... but I can't seem to word it any better than that.

eta - ::squeezed AmyLiz... and steals her beer::

Where the analogy between Buffy's leap and Dean's deal breaks down is that Buffy was giving up her life to save Dawn and the world--or at least this dimension, whereas Dean was giving up not just his life but his soul to reverse something which had already happened. ... Dean mortgaged his soul in eternal damnation to ressurect a--as far as we know--peacefully deceased Sam, mostly out of guilt and terror at having failed at his duty.

Dean was giving up life and soul (the former of which he was convinced shouldn't have been there to give up in the first place) primarily to reverse Sam's death, yes, but I think that the knowledge that there was a battle coming, that he needed to be part of it, and that he couldn't, not without Sam, factored in. So in weighing the options, his life and soul vs. Sam and the world? No contest.

you don't leave an eight-year-old alone with a four-year-old and then BLAME HIM

IIRC, up those by two years. Dean's either 26 or 27 (handwave the S1 timeline) in the present day scenes, and the events took place "sixteen or seventeen years ago" by his retelling. Not that nine or ten and five or seven are really a hell of a lot better there.

Sorry to have posted and run!

Deena! You mean the S2 premiere? Or are you starting at S1?

No, am idiot. I meant the season finale. I've been watching from the beginning. This is my show, mang. We go way back.