#daniel mathews

I think some of John Kramer's more nonsensical targets can be explained by his want for children/ his loss of Gideon. ((...I will say some, not all.))

I'll start with Daniel Mathews. Daniel is still a kid and so it makes no sense to test him right?

Except he's a manipulation chip. Eric is always shown to be giving his kid a hard time and generally sucking as a parent.

But Daniel isn't meant to be in danger, really, despite being in the game. Amanda is in there to protect him. The whole twist at the end of the game, ""a safe and secure place"", wouldn't work if Daniel didn't live. The whole game is testing Eric's patience and compliance; the hell's it gonna be worth if Daniel dies?? That's also why Xavier is such a dangerous peice of the puzzle; he's able to throw Amanda around like she's nothing and puts Daniel in an actual form of danger. Daniel tries feigning death to get away from him, and even after that Amanda's protecting his body.

Also, despite the theft, he's repeatedly shown to be a nice and compassionate kid?? He repeatedly supports Laura and helps Amanda out of the needle pit/ pull the needles out. Makes little sense testing the boy.

Next I'll move on to Saw 3; the quandary of Lynn and Corbett Denlon.

John says Lynn's crime is, essentially, grieving the wrong way. I mean, Mr Kramer, if that's the case then you're a huge flaming hypocrite.

What I enterpret her crime as is this, which makes a little more sense to me; neglecting Corbett.

Gideon appeared to be everything to John, and so he likely thinks that parents are supposed to be like him. But Jeff and Lynn have both forgotten thier own child, living and breathing Corbett, in losing Dylan. Hence, she gets neglected, and thier real crime occurs. Losing his child was everything to John, and so seeing Corbett get neglected was the big issue. Not simply having depression- although cheating does seem to be a thing he's also not a fan of. (Dr Gordon, anyone? Not the only reason Gordon is tested, and not the only reason Lynn is.)

Now onto Corbett herself; if Corbett is so important, why bring her into the test at all? To this, I say; I think Corbett wasn't in real danger.

John says to Jeff in Saw 3 that he's the only one who knows where Corbett is: That makes no sense whatsoever, because 1. John is literally dying of cancer, how tf is a bedridden man abducting a child. 2. Amanda can be seen in Saw 6 visiting Corbett. And 3. Hoffman clearly knows where she is, how else is he meant to have saved her in Saw 4 otherwise.

So here I raise; in John's original plan, Jeff takes a test to rescue Corbett. If he fails, he dies and Hoffman rescues her. If he wins, he lives and actually appreciates his living child again.

But of course, in comes Hoffman with plans of his own. Hoffman has worked out enough about Strahm, so I surmise from the tapes, that he'll work out where Gideon Meatpacking is, rush in and they'll be a shootout with Strahm and Jeff- whose vengeful ass will shoot on sight anyone he sees at this point. Strahm will shoot Jeff and end up in an unwinnable trap. (Which Strahm wins anyway, because he's a bamf.) He respects one last peice of John's wishes- that Corbett lives, because rescuing the child makes him look good. Amanda clearly tries to screw with this by telling Corbett not to trust Hoffman, but appears unsuccessful.

With that convoluted mess aside, I say; once again, the kid isn't supposed to be in real danger of dying, just scaring the parent into thinking so to remind them to actually appreciate thier kid.

And finally, Diana Gordon. I know, this one is the easiest to pick holes in.

But what I have to say to that is... John spends a fair amount of time watching his future victims before putting them in the traps. He likes to work out how they'll react, so that he can plan accordingly. He says that much several times, seems to be a point of pride for him. So I raise;

John knows that Zep will get a power trip and insist on fucking around with the gun to terrify the hell out of Diana. This will force protective instincts out of Alison, and make her find a way to get free and protect her child. ((Also, he likely knows that Tapp is likely watching. What's the chance that Tapp will let an innocent child get shot to death??))

Gordon's whole game is to appreciate his family, and with Alison there to play protector Diana... he can afford to lie on the bathroom floor for six hours. Diana should be relatively safe.

And of course... it's been said before, but Adam is kinda fucked from the get go. Amanda doesn't properly issue him his key, so he loses all chance of surviving- because he's worked out that Adam won't hack his foot off.

And so I finally raise; Adam was the first unwinnable trap that Amanda set up, which she was tested for in Saw 3. Because he didn't get the quick death, like Troy or Kerry, she mercy killed him.

Or, to cut a very long story short;-

I often see/hear people criticising John for testing kids and putting them in death traps. To this I say;- by Kramer's twisted logic, the kids were never truly meant to be harmed.