well, if they are putting together a larger mythology that involved John's father (and by mention his grandfather and great-grandfather), I would have thought there might be some thought to his mother in there.

I don't think that everything needs to be completely thought out, but this show is going to be retconned all over the place.

The easy explanation would be that John's mother's father, or brother, was a mechanic. Or that was a shorthand he used because he didn't want to talk about his dad walking out on them.

I mean, is it a little lazy? Sure. Any references to his family should have been checked, at least so they could make sure it all lines up. But in this case it doesn't bug me.

Also, I liked the episode a lot better than a throwaway line from just one scene one time.

I wonder where the balance between "Dad had his issues, okay, but he was always there for us." and "He's always missing, and he's always fine."/"Deadbeat dad" is.

It's always been clear for me personally, and maybe that has to do with being a parent? I don't know.

But while stuff like the Christmas episode makes it clear John didn't make a huge effort for holidays, and didn't always show up on time, and wasn't real concerned with what the boys wanted as much as what he wanted for them, he loved them.

Yes, he left them in places he thought would be safe (enough) but he then added his own precautions. He made sure they were schooled (up to the point where every parent doesn't have a choice anymore). He instilled values in them, and we all know you can't exactly judge whose values are right or wrong. His were family loyalty, a sense of civic duty in an are not many others even knew existed, hard work, and a kind of stoicism.

So, yes, more like soldiers than children, but there are folks out there doing that for less honorable reasons, too.

Maybe John had a stepdad who was a mechanic.

So, they plan out a canon where his mother plays no important part, they get asked that question, they answer it like your quote.

If the issue is "why shouldn't his mother have an important part?" I get it. Otherwise, what's the problem? I don't see what that means other than "we didn't think to put her in the story--maybe later".

I'd be surprised if Mary was a hunter in the pilot, so I'm not going to take away *any* writer's ability to retcon. "Things they hadn't thought about before" might also be called "two out of the next five episodes". On most shows. And even if you're JMS, you plot shit out avec OCD, and then people leave, so what was the point again?

I am now reading about fan petitions for a third supporting character. My tumblr is about to get really naked. Dig this:

To be a part of the campaign and show your support of Castiel and other supporting characters, simply write in big, bold letters on a piece of paper “Feathers for Castiel” and put it in an envelope. Also put a feather (or many) in the envelope, white if possible but any colour if you can’t find white.

I..just...I didn't sign on for a series written by random tumblr holders. I am so old-fashioned in this regard.

Saving series is one thing (and even then...). Plotting them with this level of expectation is another.

he loved them

Ding! Nothing he did was because he was hateful, or dispassionate, or pointedly neglectful of their wellbeing--he just mis(fucking)calculated some shit, sometimes by bigger distances than others. But he loved them, and thought he was protecting them, as well as bringing them up to protect others.

And embark on a lifelong quest for vengeance, but if your parents can't have fun, why have kids????

Plotting them with this level of expectation is another.

Nobody is going to do reams of work that might never get used. It's also counterintuitive to spend too much on details like that while you're breaking a story. The plot and the current POV characters are way more important.

And since, for instance, Mary was killed in the pilot, and the boys were raised by John, there wouldn't be a whole lot of need to create a backstory for her parents from the get-go.

And that's what makes it fun as you proceed. You go back to see where you left a door open, and what might happen if you walk through it.

You may well be right that the "men of letters" still exist. But there is one good reason for thinking they are all dead: their looking upon Hunters as "apes", and their general sense of superiority.

Unless their knowledge of magic made them mega powerful, that level of arrogance when messing with the supernatural is likely to get them all killed. My head canon on this is that the "men of letters" (hereafter lettermen) are a cycle. They study magic, grow more powerful, more arrogant, get themselves killed off. Then someone stumbles upon their cache of knowledge, and starts a new chapter of the lettermen which gradually grows more arrogant and are killed off.

I personally loved the episode.

And the whole Alchemist's Lodge vibe, naturally. It's like every Masonic conspiracy made awesome.

Yeah and the cycle thing is kind of how the Masons worked. I mean the real Masons pretended to be an ancient order but were actually founded in the 18th century . Then refounded in the 19th century from scratch based on stories and published records about the 18th century ones. In all fairness, the 20th century Masons legitimately can trace their family tree to the 19th century lodges.

Nobody is going to do reams of work that might never get used. It's also counterintuitive to spend too much on details like that while you're breaking a story. The plot and the current POV characters are way more important.

Your point is well taken, but I still find it a little frustrating when we add weird character notes (Sam really didn't search for Dean, really?), etc. I don't mind some winging it...I guess I'll just have to go with the flow and ignore the contradictions.