The Psyche Behind The Character

[JessieBlackwood]

I am interested in looking deeper into the characters we love, and wondered who has insights they'd like to share. I for one have noticed some things about a few of them I would like to see if anyone agrees with.

 

Take John, for example. Several 'reveals' show up exactly how screwed up our dear doctor really is.

 

1) The meeting with Mycroft where he takes John's left hand and says "You're not haunted by the war, Dr Watson, you miss it."

 

2) The exchange between Sherlock and John in Study in Pink,

Sherlock – “Seen a lot of injuries, then?… violent deaths?”

John – “Yes.”

Sherlock – “Bit of trouble, too, I bet.”

John – “Of course, yes. Enough for a lifetime… far too much. “

Sherlock – “Want to see some more?”

john - "Oh, God, yes."

Those words are loaded with longing, said with an eagerness that seems almost indecent.

 

3) Sherlock asks John "If you were dying, if you were being murdered, in your last few seconds what would you say?"

John - "Please God, let me live."

Sherlock - "Oh, use your imagnation."

John - "I don't have to."

 

Has anyone else noticed this emotional bomb that is John Watson waiting to go off? I have read a few accounts from trauma surgeons in the Iraq war as well as Afghanistan and they all point to resulting in severe cases of PTSD at the very least. I agree with Mycroft. I think John should fire his counsellor. She has it completely wrong.

[Lirael]

Oooh, I've been dying for something like this!

 

Excuse me if I ramble:

 

BBC's Watson is my favorite Watson. In other Sherlock Holmes', Watson is a simple man: he's kind, patient, loyal and adores his friend, Sherlock. He is the normal man, through which we see the crazy antics of an unusual one: Holmes.In this adaptation, both are unusual.

 

Mycroft points out John has trust issues, but chose to trust Sherlock. As much of a fangirl as I am, I don't think it was trust at all; he moved in as fast as possible with Sherlock because he knew somehow Sherlock was everything he wanted: company (he was lonely) and danger. And this brings me to point something out: Sherlock is also distrustful, plus aloof and cold, but he made an effort to get John to be his flatmate (the wink, his brief attempt to tidy up his stuff in 221B etc) which makes me believe that he had already realized from their first encounter John was different, unique, not dull at all and migh enjoy the danger. Considering his text and talk with John later ("might be dangerous" "want to see some more?") this is probably true. Oh, and John's face when he saw Sherlock on the roof on the unaired pilot.

 

Back to John: speaking of his being alone, everyone likes him and he's pleasant, yet after the war he is totally alone, we never see him talking to a friend, which is weird considering how sociable he is and this isn't because he had just gotten back from the war: throughout the series we never see him going to meet with former friends, only to meet up with girlfriends. The one friend he meets up with (by accident) he almost doesn't recognize and he can barely handle a conversation with him (he's easily pissed off by the guy's laughter and never let's down his defensive). So I think he's very similar to Sherlock: there's something about normal people he can't handle, only that unlike Sherlock he hides it. Maybe he always enjoyed the thrill of danger, thus making him feel different from other and than making him leave everything and go to the army. Maybe it's another reason he likes Sherlock so much: he says what he really thinks, isn't boring like others and leads to danger.

 

And Sherlock is probably good for his ego too: he needs saving (provided by John), has noone to depend on (but John) and needs someone to be his doctor (John again) because he doesn't take care of himself.

 

Last thing: John's reaction to Sherlock figuring out his past: an interetsing reaction indeed. He's distrustful yet he enjoyed bein gread by Sherlock? Instead of getting angry or bitter or more closed off? Veeeery weird reaction no? And why? Does he like he thought of someone paying attention to him (with a drunk, lesbian sister, maybe he was never the center of attention of his parents and family) or is this another side of his 'twisted' personality, another proof he too abhors dull people and dull reactions like Sherlock?

 

So I see him as even more devious and dangerous than Sherlock: Sherlock doesn't hide his feelings and opinions while John does: pretending to be a poor, ordinary guy being dragged around by his friends. One day he won't be able to handle his charade anymore...

Edited March 19, 2012 by Lirael

[Banshee]

I did notice the little tidbits, and yeah, I find John very interesting. I think that is one of the reasons why I haven't written fanfic in this fandom yet: the most interesting character for me is John, and in order to show him, I would have to write him through someone else's eyes, probably Sherlock's, and I just can't get into Sherlock's head.

 

But I ramble.

 

I think you and Mycroft are right. John seems to be able to handle anything that puts him under pressure, any danger that comes his way, a lot more easily than normal life. In a way, that is something that John and Sherlock have in common, I think: neither of them handles boredom and normality, they just have different thresholds.

[Lirael]

that is something that John and Sherlock have in common, I think: neither of them handles boredom and normality, they just have different thresholds.

 

Aaaand, more rambling...commence!

 

Something we'll never know but i'd give an arm to see is their growing up. Because I think when they were very young the only thing that made Sherlock and John different was that: Sherlock was smarter than normal and John was very emotional. I do think John hid his personality because he gets hurt easily by what people say (sherlock talks badly about his blog, he goes spend the night somewhere else) so he kept a sociable distance with people: so that they never talked badly of him. Sherlock, meanwhile, told himself he didn't need to heed what others said, because he was better and smarter than them. He even began to call himself a sociopath as a way to protect himself.

 

Why I think saying he's a sociopath is a survival mechanism: S01E02: sebastians comment "we hated him". Sherlock must have been hurt and friendless and this wasn't the first time, probably. What better way to tell himself that this was ok, that it didn't hurt? By declaring to himself and evryone he's a sociopath, and therefore it's expected that he be like that.

 

This is bullshit cause I'm pretty sure jumping off the roof to save your friends, going into a panick every time John's in danger and crying in fear are not the actions of a sociopath.

[JessieBlackwood]

Somebody somewhere suggested Sherlock has Aspergers. If you read accounts of Aspergers it usually manifests like Autism, but without the attendant learning difficulties that Autistic people have. I have known two people with Autism (although one was possibly Aspergers because he was highly intelligent) and they are both focused people. When you talk to them, you talk to them, not to anyone else. Their whole attention is on you all the time and they are unaware of anyone else. They don't pick up on social signals - whether you are bored with the conversation, whether you are tired, if you want to end it and leave. You have to override social convention and tell them plainly, kindly that you have to go. Usually they don't take offence. It doesn't occur to them to think that you are being rude. You are communicating, simple as that. They do not recognise rudeness, it is water off a duck's back, as they say. It's no excuse to be unkind, but simply to be plain and make sure they understand.

 

Seems the main difference between the two conditions (and I am defintely no expert) is that autistic people have learning difficulties that Aspergers do not, but at then end of the day both conditions are what are called spectrum disorders. There are a wide variety of variables within the condition and different people display different aspects of them. It has been suggested that Sherlock has Aspergers, is 'high-functioning' (whether sociopathic or anything else) and is genius level intellect. What he lacks in social graces, he makes up for in intelligence. John is his moral compass. This allows Sherlock to function, but without the social interaction 'normal' people have. He is very focused, almost OCD in his approach to life, to his experiments. He can manage a few tolerant friends, but periods of inaction are treated like a tantrum thrown by a five year old.

 

John seems to exhibit his own loner tendencies, his own adiction to danger and adrenalin. What made him sign up to the RAMC to begin with? You never hear about his parents, and his only sibling is an alcoholic lesbian who has split from her partner. Another disfunctional relationship. However, where John seeks to remove himself from Harry, he actively seeks Sherlock. In fact he kills a man to protect him in the first episode. Drastic action for such a fledgling relationship. It isn't impulse. He has taken his gun with him. He knows Sherlock is in danger. I do think that the killing is less about killing the serial killer than protecting Sherlock from himself.

 

Jumping off the roof to save your friends could be considered to be selfish. If you know you are going to live, that is. Love itself can be considered to be selfish. after all we non of us want to be lonely, we all want someone to think we're great and worth knowing. John is essential to Sherlock. He is the one person who understands and accepts him, because he can see himself reflected there. With Sherlock it is the Great Game. With John it is the adrenalin. Without Sherlock, John is rudderless, purposeless. Without John, Sherlock is lonely, and has no one who praises him and feeds his ego. Since John came on the scene he has found something prevciously lacking in his life. However, there is nothing to say that Sherlock cannot love, or cannot feel fear, or cannot sacrifice himself to save people.

 

I think John is one of those people who needs to be needed (damn, I so identify with that) and Sherlock needs him. He needs the pressure and stress to function and probably makes a terrible patient. Sherlock I think does not understand him very well though. I know it was a quote taken from the original book to say that "you see but you do not observe" but it is completely wrong. A doctor, a surgeon particularly, does observe. He draws conclusions exactly like Sherlock. He sees the nuances of a case, and he deduces his diagnosis. Really, imho they should make John observe a great deal more than he is doing.

[aely]

I think John is one of those people who needs to be needed

You'll find that quite a lot of people who go into medicine/nursing/associated professions are like that (which again fits with John's doctor side) but that those who go into medicine rather than nursing also have the need to maintain some distance.

[believeinsherlock]

Wow, those are some really interesting comments and ideas. Not sure I can actually add anything else other than I really love this particular interpretation of Watson...it's one of the first times he's shown to be actually cool and have some distinct personality of his own. There are so many interesting things they could do with his character, I'm really looking forward to seeing where they take it in Series 3 and particularly how he reacts to finding out Sherlock isn't dead! Personally I think a good punch in the face wouldn't go amiss.

[Undead Medic]

but that those who go into medicine rather than nursing also have the need to maintain some distance.

 

Gregory House...

[aely]

I've never seen House, but from what I gather he would just class as the brilliant but arrogant twat kind of doctor (some similarities on the surface to a certain Owen Harper, there).

[JessieBlackwood]

House is a take on Sherlock Holmes, despite being a doctor he was never meant to be a Watson. It is quite deliberate too. See notes below and a link to a small article drawing comparisons.

 

1) the name - House - is a take on Holmes.

2) House lacks social skills and is at best awkward around others, if not downright rude.

3) House' best friend is Dr James Wilson, Sherlock's of course is Dr John Watson.

4) He lives at 221B, which apparently has been seen in an episode and as such is canon.

5) He is genius level at deducing the solution to the problem of disease and mirrors Holmes' precepts of deduction.

6) His addiction to Vicodin mirrors Sherlock's addiction to cocaine.

7) Holmes plays violin, House plays piano, music is important to both of them.

8) displays laziness and boredom until presented with an interesting case.

 

There are a number of other connections, including the use of the surnames Adler and Moriarty. Read the wiki below for more. There is even a connection between Hugh Laurie and Benedict Cumberbatch. Read on and all shall be revealed.

 

http://house.wikia.com/wiki/Gregory_House_and_Sherlock_Holmes_connections

[Lirael]

9) both have a slashable friendship

 

Good lord, I used to love House and I never ever noticed this...AWESOME! (or should I say brilliant?).

 

I think John is one of those people who needs to be needed (damn, I so identify with that) and Sherlock needs him. He needs the pressure and stress to function and probably makes a terrible patient. Sherlock I think does not understand him very well though. I know it was a quote taken from the original book to say that "you see but you do not observe" but it is completely wrong. A doctor, a surgeon particularly, does observe. He draws conclusions exactly like Sherlock. He sees the nuances of a case, and he deduces his diagnosis. Really, imho they should make John observe a great deal more than he is doing.

 

I did think they were making him deduce a great deal all things considered. I mean, Sherlock could simply solve the cases and tell John how he did it to receive his praise, but he does go out of his way at times to include John (The Great Game is the biggest example of this) or delegates certain important tasks to John (although that maybe due to laziness, but I don't think that's just it).

[Muzey]

I did a blog post regarding my views of Sherlock. I did mention the Aspergers thing so just a heads up if needed.

 

http://muzeyaspey.blogspot.com/2012/04/sherlock-2010-character-review.html

 

Love the character. Will Possibly do a review of Moriarty soon.

[InGenHarborMaster]

OH I love these types of forums!!! moving on.......

 

I agree with everything that the first person who replied said, although, I think the two characters end up having a relationship that is more than them both seeking entertainment together. I think you can see this when Molly points out that Sherlock always looks sad when he thinks John isnt looking. This definitely shows that they have something a little more than just a fast paced adventure romance. We must also realize that in the original texts John and Sherlock dont go off on a case right away they live together for weeks before they realize they both want the adventure. Also, in the book John just thinks of Sherlock as odd and very withdrawn but then he grows to be more attached, as well as Sherlock to him. They say that love grows from a common interest, not always but in this case 'tis true.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I think John is one of those people who needs to be needed ... and Sherlock needs him....

 

... quite a lot of people who go into medicine ... are like that (which again fits with John's doctor side) ....

 

The more I think about the character, the more I think this is the key to understanding John Watson. His therapist thinks he's haunted by the war, Mycroft counters that he misses it -- I suspect they're both right. The sadness on John's face when he first sees the pink lady lying dead on the floor shows that he has not become hardened to death, so yes, the carnage of war was disturbing to him. On the other hand, that was one place where he could make a real difference every day.

 

I agree this is also why John is attracted to Sherlock -- Sherlock needs him. John responds to Sherlock's "might be dangerous" text not because he craves danger, but because he suspects that Sherlock lacks a healthy fear of danger, and so is (rightly!) concerned for his safety.

 

During Sherlock's absence, John will be on his own financially, so he will need to get a job again. One place that might satisfy his intense desire to be useful would be a hospital emergency room -- almost as good as a war zone.

 

.... I know it was a quote taken from the original book to say that "you see but you do not observe" but it is completely wrong. A doctor, a surgeon particularly, does observe. He draws conclusions exactly like Sherlock. He sees the nuances of a case, and he deduces his diagnosis. Really, imho they should make John observe a great deal more than he is doing.

 

I agree! I know that Sherlock is able to spot unusual clues. But surely there are times when a keen medical eye could be of great help to him (and if the police are relying on Anderson, then John could be a great help to them as well).

[Our Division]

As far as John Watson's psyche goes, did you guys notice the whole "I killed people!" "You were a doctor!" "I HAD BAD DAYS!"?

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think Watson technically means killing people... conventionally. If he was a doctor, and he had a bad day, this might mean a risk to his patient. Maybe he's talking about times when he failed to save people, where he blames himself.

Yeah, I'm definitely reading too much into it, but it's fun to think about.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree that Sherlock's innocent request to be punched in the face taps into John's suppressed feelings. As for exactly what "bad days" he's talking about -- you raise an interesting point. I'm usually laughing so hard at this scene that it had never occurred to me to analyze what he means.

 

Of course, John is a soldier as well as a doctor, and judging by the opening flashbacks in "A Study in Pink," he was on the front lines in Afghanistan. He could have had occasion to kill enemy soldiers, and (even if this was in self-defense) may feel that he has thereby betrayed his duty as a doctor -- very "bad days" indeed.

 

Or -- what you said.

[Our Division]

Analyzing John Watson is so much fun because Moffat and Gatiss add so many subtle little details, and then encourage us, as the fandom, to pick them apart as they laugh deviously from the sidelines.

 

Moving on to my favoritest (I love him so much I'll invent words for him) character, Lestrade: Do you guys think he got fired?

If you look at the whole situation from a very meta point of view, it's unlikely that they'd be able to bring Sherlock back in a crime-solving capacity without a Friend on the Force, who has, up until this point, been Lestrade. If they fire Lestrade, Sherlock won't be able to get any juicy details for any cases unless Lestrade gets re-hired, or they find someone else to bring Sherly in on things. On the other hand, removing Lestrade from the police force would give Sherlock a nice obstacle he'd have to overcome if he'd want to keep catching criminals.

In-universe, it really kind of differs. The Chief Super is a humongous jerk, and Anderson and Donovan do what they're best at - making things worse. If Anderson and Donovan, who are all too eager to confess, choose to spin things to make it look like Lestrade is the only one to blame, then I doubt it Lestrade would continue being Detective Inspector, if he didn't just get kicked off the force entirely. Or, people start talking about Dimmock and the other DI assigned to the dead hitchhiker case, and how they also accepted Sherlock's help. This could mean one of three things; 1) Everyone involved is fired and they have to recruit a new police force pretty much from scratch, which is unlikely 2) Few people or no people are fired or penalized, because it would be too much of a hassle/scandal 3) Everyone starts thinking logically, realize that there's no way Sherlock could have been lying about his deductive abilities, realize how stupid they are, and all go to mourn his untimely death which ended up being partly their fault.

I'm hoping for option 3, but I kind of doubt it'll happen.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Good point. Now that the Chief Inspector knows just how often Lestrade relied on Sherlock to help him on "proper cases," poor Greg may be in for it. I doubt that he'll be fired, though, assuming that his record is otherwise good (which we have to assume it is, having no evidence to the contrary). He'll probably get an official reprimand, plus a stern warning not to do that sort of thing again, which of course he can't anyhow (at least not till Sherlock comes back). They could demote him, but that would leave them short-handed at the inspector level -- so I imagine there will just be some noise and no real change.

 

Bureaucracies are like that.

 

 

Added later: Like Jessie (in the following post), I am thinking fiction here, not real life. See this thread for a heavy dose of the real-life probabilities.

[JessieBlackwood]

As he is my hero, I have to comment on what might happen to Greg. Although the Chief Super was a jerk, he was only doing his job, and the police don't consult amateurs. Sherlock is not qualified to stand as an expert despite his observational skills. If there was an official investigation, it might show that he had nothing to do with the crimes, but Lestrade could find himself suspended on full pay pending the outcome. He would at the very least find himself reprimanded, and possibly demoted to Sergeant, a level below. I am thinking fiction here, though, not real life. I suspect this would, were it real, be a dismissal offence. In our tale, I hope it doesn't happen. Although Rupert isn't in every episode, he cuts a good figure as Lestrade and should be retained. The original Holmes had more than one DI to refer to though. Apart from Lestrade, there were Inspectors Gregory, Merrivale, Montgomery, Patterson, Morton, Youghal, MacKinnon, McDonald, Lanner, Hopkins, Hill, Gregson, Forrester, Forbes, Brown, Bradstreet, Baynes, Barton and Athelney Jones of the Yard alone. Who knows if they have designs on replacing our Greg. I really, really hope not though. Please God don't let Sherlock fail to take out the assassin targetting Greg! I don't think I could cope with that.

 

I love Greg Lestrade's ordinary facade. He is the typical copper, a good man, methodical but faced with some things even he struggles with. He knows Sherlock is good at what he does and saves them precious time. Greg uses every resource at his disposal, including people. He is a pragmatic man, kind and dedicated. He sees Sherlock for what he could be, including all his flaws. He accepts John, although he is wary. After all, Sherlock isn't known for being WITH anyone. Lestrade isn't a man to mess with either. He's also more than a bit BAMF with a gun in his hand (Baskerville).

 

I hope we don't lose him and that Rupert is available to play him next year. By then a lot of water will have passed beneath that bridge and we'll all be waiting to see what happens.

[aely]

I'm hoping for option 3, but I kind of doubt it'll happen.

I'm going for option 4, which is essentially what Jess said above - suspension, investigation and eventual reinstatement (even if not as a DI)

 

I don't think BBC Sherlock would be the same without Lestrade (it's one of the reasons I don't like the Blind Banker as much as the other eps, even though there isn't anything inherently wrong with Dimmock - he's just not Lestrade!)

[sheepfriend]

I don't know where to write this so i wrote it in this topic : Have you ever thought about Sherlock having a child, who wants to fool Sherlock because he don't want to go to school. It has to be close by a crime to fool Sherlock in such a little thing, hasn't it? What do you think?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hello again, sheepfriend! Good question, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of Sherlock having a child! OK, maybe an adopted child? Like maybe someone left a baby on his doorstep?

 

Well then, I would say to that child, "Good luck, trying to fool Sherlock Holmes!" Though of course, since he or she has been raised by Sherlock, the kid might be able to do it! That would be an interesting battle of wits!

[Undead Medic]

Hello again, sheepfriend! Good question, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of Sherlock having a child! OK, maybe an adopted child? Like maybe someone left a baby on his doorstep?

 

Of course we know who would be left holding the baby if this were to happen...

 

 

*Cough* John *Cough cough*

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

That's OK -- he's a doctor!

 

 

By the way, I finally found how to make those Spoiler boxes. In case anyone is still looking for it, it's in the drop-down menu from the Special BBCode button (third from left in top row above). Wow -- all sorts of cool things there!

[Undead Medic]

You can also do it by simply typing:

 

Your content goes here...