Canon References In BBC Sherlock

[Boton]

I was just lazily browsing around my Complete Sherlock Holmes (good thing about working in shifts: You get random days off to lie around in bed and drink coffee and do nothing), and I noticed this line by Watson:

 

"All my years of humble but single-minded service culminated in that moment of revelation."

 

And it made me think of Sherlock comparing himself to Sholto in The Sign of Three as John's "commanding officer". Because it is true. One of the reasons why I don't think "best friends" is quite the right word for these two is that their relationship isn't really an equal one. In the original version especially, there's a clear hierarchy between them, with Holmes being indeed very much the commanding officer. And while Freeman's John is a lot more assertive than Doyle's Dr Watson, I think they still preserved that very nicely on Sherlock. In many ways, Sherlock and John are more really good colleagues or "brothers in arms" than friends.

 

That's very far from a bad thing. Being part of a good team at an interesting job is one of the most satisfying experiences life has to offer, in my opinion.

 

Totally agree, T.o.b.y.  I've wondered a lot recently about the lack of a term for the Sherlock/John relationship in English.  (Someone else will have to comment on other languages, and I would like to know if other languages do a better job.)

 

Like you say, there's a hierarchy there.  There's a sense of officer/"enlisted" to the relationship (which is part of why Joan on Elementary doesn't work for me), there's a best friends relationship, there's brothers in arms, but nothing that describes the complexity of this kind of relationship.  I think that's why we sometimes "fall back" on terms like "romance," and then we get into messy discussions where we try to separate out sexuality from intensity.  

 

The language just needs another word, that's all. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

The language just needs another word, that's all.

But how often would we have an opportunity to use it?  Would it actually apply to anyone except Holmes and Watson?

 

Come to think of it, maybe there already is such a word -- but everyone's forgotten it for lack of practice!

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

The language just needs another word, that's all.

But how often would we have an opportunity to use it?  Would it actually apply to anyone except Holmes and Watson?

 

Good question... not really, I think. The only example I can think of where two characters have a similar relationship is Frodo and Sam from Lord of the Rings, and that is only slightly similar.

 

I'm actually delighted there isn't a fixed term. I love things that can't be described with one word.

 

[Boton]

 

The language just needs another word, that's all.

But how often would we have an opportunity to use it?  Would it actually apply to anyone except Holmes and Watson?

 

Come to think of it, maybe there already is such a word -- but everyone's forgotten it for lack of practice!

 

 

I tend to think the language can lead the culture as much as the culture leads the language, so I would argue that having a word for such a friendship would tend to make people seek such a relationship out in their lives to the extent possible.  

[Arcadia]

Seek it out, or just admit to it? Maybe I'm just seeing a different relationship than the rest of you, but I don't think it's all THAT rare. I don't even think it's particularly unique to men, or even to same sex relationships; but men are less likely, it seems to me, to make over it so much.

 

As for the commander/subordinant aspect -- I would go so far to say that plays out in most relationships, but in ways that are unique to each. Just to address romantic partners in general and the assorted couples in my own family in particular ... there's a clear "master or mistress of the house" in every case. That doesn't mean that one of the partners is inferior (far from it!!!! at least in my assertive family!), just that he/she is more likely to cede the lead to the other partner, because it works better for both of them that way.  The one exception to that model broke up after about 5 years. But I suppose it's possible that my family is not the norm. (But they seem so normal to me!!!! :D )

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yup, sounds like my family too, now that you mention it.  I used to think that Mom was a wimp, but finally realized that her way of dealing with my headstrong father was to choose her battles very carefully.

 

[Boton]

Seek it out, or just admit to it? Maybe I'm just seeing a different relationship than the rest of you, but I don't think it's all THAT rare. I don't even think it's particularly unique to men, or even to same sex relationships; but men are less likely, it seems to me, to make over it so much.

 

 

Maybe a little of both.  I agree that the relationship is not that rare, but I do think it would be nice if it were culturally codified so that it was something people nurtured a little more.  For example, we have the idea of "love match" romantic soul mates as an ideal, and we try to strive for that in our marriages.  (Whether most people succeed is, I suppose, up for debate!)  But our expectations of marriage would be different in a culture that used marriage for dynastic purposes or that had purely arranged marriages -- then we get mythology like courtly love.  I was just pondering that it would be nice to think that people recognized that, in addition to your spouse, you could form other "primary" type relationships that functioned as partnerships in different contexts.  Maybe they do more than I think.

[Arcadia]

I think they do, but as you say, they're not "codified", which makes it harder to apply labels to them. I think I rather like it that way, labels are too often just a way of oversimplifying things.

[T.o.b.y]

I keep finding new ones! From "Black Peter":

 

"Holmes was working somewhere under one of the numerous disguises and names with which he concealed his own formidable identity. He had at least five small refuges in different parts of London in which he was able to change his personality."

 

So this is where the bolt holes idea came from, I suppose.

[sittything]

Speaking of canon, I bought the complete works of Sherlock Holmes over Christmas.  Now to read!

[Arcadia]

He was able to change his personality? I thought he was a sociopath, not dissociative! :p (I love how language changes over time...... ;) )

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Seems he was and is a consomate actor. It was remarked in canon that the stage lost a great actor when Sherlock Holmes decided to become a Consulting Detective.

[joanneta1]

Once more went through the whole thread, and it was really a labour of love for all participants.

In HLV, he explains to Mycroft during the cigarette smoking scene that he dislikes Magnussen because the latter preys on people who are different (could that include himself?)

In the stories he has an up-to-date burglary kit, which he uses frequently, but only confesses to in The Bruce-Partington plans.

Mary and John's lines "You can't come..." "You can't go..." are directly adapted from the Milverton story extensively quoted in this thread, and they are still funny, after a hundred years.

The Bloody Guardsman could be their take on The Blanched Soldier, from which they borrowed part of his best man speech.

I am profoundly glad, however, that he is so adaptable, and that my Dad (an orthopaedic surgeon) was a bit like him in observing the world around him, like knowing how many steps there were in our staircase, or how many seconds it took for the lift to reach his office, not to mention patients' little quirks. Nothing spectacular, but methodical, precise and logical.

[T.o.b.y]

Mary and John's lines "You can't come..." "You can't go..." are directly adapted from the Milverton story extensively quoted in this thread, and they are still funny, after a hundred years.

 

Are they? Oh yes... But it wasn't Mr. and Mrs. Watson in the original. The story takes place while the doctor is living at Baker St, and nobody in sight is pregnant (at least not that I know of, god knows what troubles Milverton's poor victims had).

 

Anyway, this is the original dialog. Holmes has just informed Watson that he intends to burgle Milverton's house.

 

“Well, I don’t like it; but I suppose it must be,” said I. “When do we start?”

“You are not coming.”

“Then you are not going,” said I. “I give you my word of honour—and I never broke it in my life—that I will take a cab straight to the policestation and give you away unless you let me share this adventure with you.”

 

You know, I sorely miss this side of John. I feel as if Sherlock becoming more like the original character he is based on, and John is getting further and further away. When did Holmes ever have to persuade or trick his compatriot into joining him on an adventure? When did he ever have to listen to sentences like: "Yeah, I'll text you if I'm available" or "But it's Christmas!" or "Sherlock. Do we have a plan?"

 

I love John, but in His Last Vow, I sometimes want to shake him and say, listen buddy, there was a time when you realized this man here is bloody amazing and brilliant, and he's doing most of this for you and your wife, who shot him right in the chest for fear of losing you and they both love you so much they take one stupid, reckless, dangerous and illegal step after the other to keep you safe and your little bubble of domestic bliss intact. How about some appreciation?

 

Of course John's grudging manner and pissed off attitude is actually a lot more realistic, considering what he has to put up with from these two loons he's managed to attract, and it's also really funny. But there's something to be said for good-natured-to-a-fault Dr Watson of old, even if I do sometimes laugh at him.

 

[Arcadia]

I think "protective John" will show up. If nothing else, that's too beautiful a moment to waste.

[Boton]

 

 

 

I love John, but in His Last Vow, I sometimes want to shake him and say, listen buddy, there was a time when you realized this man here is bloody amazing and brilliant, and he's doing most of this for you and your wife, who shot him right in the chest for fear of losing you and they both love you so much they take one stupid, reckless, dangerous and illegal step after the other to keep you safe and your little bubble of domestic bliss intact. How about some appreciation?

 

Of course John's grudging manner and pissed off attitude is actually a lot more realistic, considering what he has to put up with from these two loons he's managed to attract, and it's also really funny. But there's something to be said for good-natured-to-a-fault Dr Watson of old, even if I do sometimes laugh at him.

 

 

 

It's an interesting balance between writing John as he needs to be written for the modern plots and situations, and making him call back to ACD Watson.  In many ways, I think writing John (and probably acting him) is a harder job than Sherlock -- any of Sherlock's antiquated call-backs to canon can basically be written off as idiosyncracy, but John has to stay internally consistent to his own character.

 

In any event, I think John is walking a parallel path to Sherlock's in HLV.  If Sherlock is learning about his connection to other people while he slowly and inadvertently creates the conditions where Magnussen's death is the only option, then John is learning about his own destructive tendencies and how much he actually needs Sherlock to balance him out.  

[T.o.b.y]

In any event, I think John is walking a parallel path to Sherlock's in HLV.  If Sherlock is learning about his connection to other people while he slowly and inadvertently creates the conditions where Magnussen's death is the only option, then John is learning about his own destructive tendencies and how much he actually needs Sherlock to balance him out.  

 

Hm, that's true, come to think of it: His Last Vow for the first time shows Sherlock actually being the sane one and helping John navigate an emotional mine filed. This certainly never happens in the original, ever. But there, Holmes himself is a lot less clueless about human nature and how to behave around other people.

 

They've taken these characters so much further than their creator wrote them, which I love. Holmes and Watson are just heroes in an adventure series, but Sherlock and John are real people, and pretty complicated and bristly ones at that.

 

 

[Arcadia]

That's lovely. I'm not sure I agree, but it's lovely! I do think John needs a bit more of a character arc, I felt like he was slightly absent in S3. All reaction, no proaction. Somehow I expect that will change, though.

 

I just watched ASiB again a few days ago and that scene where he confronts Irene and makes it clear he will only do what he thinks is best for Sherlock ... that's the John I'd like to see again. I think considering the really cruel trick Sherlock pulled on him, though (the Fall), John also deserved to be bristly around his friend for awhile. What do you want to bet, however, that after CAM the bond is now even tighter between them?

 

At any rate, I agree John's in some ways a harder character to write ... although I also think "canon be damned, just write a good story." (Sorry, Mr. Doyle! )

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I think Watson was difficult to write because in canon he was the one behind the camera, so to speak. He was present but most of the narrative was focused on Holmes and that seemed to be the way Watson wanted it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Of course John's grudging manner and pissed off attitude is actually a lot more realistic, considering what he has to put up with from these two loons he's managed to attract, and it's also really funny. But there's something to be said for good-natured-to-a-fault Dr Watson of old, even if I do sometimes laugh at him.

 

... I think John is walking a parallel path to Sherlock's in HLV.  If Sherlock is learning about his connection to other people while he slowly and inadvertently creates the conditions where Magnussen's death is the only option, then John is learning about his own destructive tendencies and how much he actually needs Sherlock to balance him out.

I can kinda see where you're each coming from, but I don't think I agree with either view. I don't think "our" John was ever "good natured to a fault" -- he's always been a bit critical of Sherlock, right from the point where he gives him that "you gotta be kidding" look as his opinion of Sherlock's blog. But neither do I see him as having "destructive tendencies" (though I wouldn't put it past Moftiss to see him that way), and I'm not even certain what you're basing that statement on.

 

That's lovely. I'm not sure I agree, but it's lovely! I do think John needs a bit more of a character arc, I felt like he was slightly absent in S3. All reaction, no proaction. Somehow I expect that will change, though....

Slightly absent may be an overstatement, but I fully agree with "all reaction, no proaction." Of course, reaction has always been Watson's job, and therefore John's job. And he's just been kicked in the gut -- several times. But yes, once he gets his bearings, I'd very much like to see the return of his spine.

[Boton]

 

 

 

 But neither do I see him as having "destructive tendencies" (though I wouldn't put it past Moftiss to see him that way), and I'm not even certain what you're basing that statement on.

 

 

Well, after all, he couldn't last a month in the suburbs without storming a crack den and beating up a junkie.  

 

Plus, there's the fact that he shot cabbie Jefferson Hope.  It was a wonderful piece of dramatic entertainment, and the guy was, in fact, a serial killer (and I guess a fairly bad cabbie), but the fact is that John wasn't necessarily showing high moral principles as evidenced by him waiting until the last minute to shoot, as Sherlock believes.  Every time I watch that episode, I can find no reasonable way that John would have known -- from another building -- the details of Hope's two pill scheme that Sherlock himself only found out once they were in the classroom.  Without those details, John wasn't shooting from a position of certainty; he was taking a lucky guess.  If I'm going to apply real world standards to John (which I generally don't, TBH), then that's destructive and capricious.  

 

I like our John.  I think he is, heretical as it might sound, an improvement over ACD Watson.  There were so many times that I thought Watson needed to grow a spine, or an ego, or another body part or two, and stop fawning over Holmes and stroking his ego.  I'm glad that our John keeps a better balance.  But for me, that also means that he gets to fight personal demons, and I think he was doing so throughout S3.

[T.o.b.y]

I like our John.  I think he is, heretical as it might sound, an improvement over ACD Watson.  There were so many times that I thought Watson needed to grow a spine, or an ego, or another body part or two, and stop fawning over Holmes and stroking his ego.

 

On the one hand, I totally agree with you. On the other hand... well, I guess I'm just glad I get to know both.

 

(And if this is heretical, fine, them I'm a complete heretic, because I think the entire series is a huge improvement compared to its source material.)

 

[joanneta1]

Once again, some of you have got the wrong end of the stick, which is fine, or we wouldn't be here having such entertaining discussions.

The original Holmes could and did work before and after Dr. Watson's appearance in his life. He went to work in Europe, Asia and Russia, he served reigning monarchs and retrieved stolen paintings all on his own. When he says "I would be lost without my Boswell", it is because he is using the good-natured, gullible doctor as his PR man, nothing more, nothing less, which the good doctor used to draw his own vicarious thrills from.

Concerning the Scotland Yard detectives, there were Lestrade, Gregson (where I thing the running gag comes from of modern Sherlock never remembering Lestrade's first name), Bradstreet, McPherson, Hopkins, as well as an assortment of local inspectors who greeted him with politeness and even respect.

He did not need Dr. Watson in his life quite as much as Dr. Watson needed to be an active participant in the adventures.  

[Arcadia]

That may apply to ACD Watson (I haven't read enough to know) but I'm pretty sure Moftiss envisions a larger, more important role for John. Heck, he was almost the lead character in the first couple of episodes. If Martin Freeman had become the big star he is now and BC remained largely unknown, I'll bet Watson would BE the lead character by now.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Even in Doyle's canon many Sherlockians and Holmesians believe that Dr. John H. Watson was necessary as Holmes's moral compass. Yes, as they grew older, Holmes did take on some cases on by himself but then Watson had gotten married at least twice and had a successful medical practice. There were probably times when Watson just could not get away even though he did as often as possible.

 

  Watson said that he had some 20 something years of being Holme's companion in crime and for thousands of cases.