John Watson

[T.o.b.y]

Oh, I think I can get something meaningful out of both S3 and S4. But I agree that it takes some work! S3, it seemed to me, was about the perils of caring; and S4 was about the necessity of caring in order to be fully human. Plus some other stuff, like whether fate exists, and if so, can we avoid it, and if we do, is it worth the cost. And lots of stuff about the nature of love. Why, it's a veritable cornucopia of meanings! I think ...... :p

I fully agree. And I frankly don't care whether any of this was intentional. To me, it matters what I can get out of the series, not what was put in.

 

I still maintain it is well written and I find the characterization to be a lot more consistent than on most series. Sherlock really benefited from a limited number of writers and episodes imo.

[Arcadia]

I admit, it does matter to me whether it was intentional or not. Remember, I'm the one who insists that authorial intent is important!

 

But I agree, it matters more to me what I get out of it than what was put into it. I'm sure quite a lot was put into The Matrix, for example ... but I don't get much out of it. ;)

[Hikari]

 

I agree with Mary's part, [....] especially in T6T, although I don't necessary relate her to Bond. Imho, her storyline is very forced in S4, and ruined things in that, beside John's hair :P. To be clear, I am bothered by his hair not only from how it looks, but from how it doesn't, really doesn't, imo, fits into the story.

[.....]

I think Bond idea really hatched from the trailer, as I also thought so back then, and with that idea firmly planted, the rest follows. It doesn't help with Mary storyline.

 

I keep telling myself that the Swoop was Mary's idea, and that she probably had to style his hair every morning, because (as you may be implying) he's simply not a gel-and-mousse kinda guy.  Just as the lip-caterpillar went away as soon as he realized Mary didn't care for it, the Swoop may fade into history as soon as he decides to get on with his life and/or realizes what a pain in the neck it is to maintain.

 

You may be right about the trailer.  Been a while since I saw it.  Also, didn't they set kind of a Bond tone with the how'd-he-do-it scenes early in TEH (especially the music)?   Somebody on some other site said they thought S3 was Bond and S4 was horror. and I'm in no great hurry to argue.

 

Despite dealing in many grisly crimes perpetrated by morally corrupt people. the Sherlock Holmes adventures of Conan Doyle mostly manage to maintain more lightness of spirit and joie de vivre than the material would seem to lend itself to, because these are, for the most part, not meant to be social commentary upon all the ills of modern society and Empire, such as most modern procedurals go for.  These were, and are *Adventures* . . which is why they remain so popular with young readers despite at times quite adult content.  Most of the Sherlockians I know first read Sherlock Holmes stories as children--8, 9, 10 years old--even though Holmes and Watson indulge in a lot of grown-up Victorian gentleman behavior.  Copious tobacco use and drinking for the both of them; shooting cocaine and visiting drug dens for Sherlock; skirt-chasing (modestly) for John.

 

For three seasons, Mofftiss mostly gave us a bunch of 'Adventures', too . . .high-spirited, humorous, all in good fun--the moments of peril tempered by the knowledge that nothing *really* bad was going to befall our heroes because after all, they had to live to solve crimes and do the bromance thing another day.  Even Sherlock's spectacular swan dive of death was staged.  Season 4 sees the tone veer wildly into the Deadly Serious vein.

[....]

The one case that [....] seems to have [canon] SH entirely spent and self-doubting at the end of it is "The Cardboard Box".  It is the saddest, and probably the most violent case in all the Canon, dealing with an horrific double murder in a lovers' triangle and preserved body parts being sent through the mails.  At the end of it, Holmes muses to Watson in a dark moment of introspection:

 

"What is the meaning of it, Watson?  What is the purpose of this circle of misery and violence and fear?  It must have a purpose.  Or our universe has no meaning and that is unthinkable?  But what purpose?  That is humanity's great problem, to which reason so far, has no answer."

 

Mofftiss danced with the darkness in S4 and seemed to be prepared to say something profound, and then they dressed Mycroft up like the Gorton's fisherman and shot Sherlock and John out of a pyrotechnic canon.  So I have to take their aspirations to Say Something Meaningful About All This with a grain of salt.  Or four or five.

 

I have no intention of arguing with you about the sudden descent into Deadly Serious -- except to say that I think it occurred an episode earlier (not counting TAB), in His Last Vow.  Seems to me that's where Sherlock and John's alienation began, in addition to being when we found out Mary wasn't who we had thought.

 

As for the show's failure to make something meaningful of it, please note that (as you said) ACD's Holmes failed as well.  So I guess you could say it's canon.

 

 

I'm glad you have no intention of arguing with me, because what a waste of time that would be.  I agree too that HLV was also dark . . I was not happy with that episode either, at first, after the very memorable and amusing ode to 'The Man with the Twisted Lip' setpiece in the beginning, of course, the Slaps Heard 'Round the Cumberverse.  I did think that Lars Mikkelsen was outstanding.  And 'Billy'.  But the whole 'Mary Watson as Sebastian Moran' thing just didn't gel with me.  At all.  But having committed to it, Moftiss had to ramp it up even more in the subsequent episode.

 

I like HLV much better than I did at first view.  I could say the same about TAB.  Season 4 showed me that these were not nearly as bad as I had first thought.

 

Holmes and Watson do become alienated in the Canon, so Mofftiss were faithful in that respect.  I just didn't care for the OTT means they used to demonstrate it.  But they reconcile in Canon and here too, so if we never get another episode (as seems likely), the final shot of our duo in the flat with Rosie is a good place to end.  I think had Mofftiss not opted to become so outlandish in their plotting they could have derived many seasons' worth more stories, but they get to decide when to pull the plug.  I guess we can call that going out with a bang rather than a whimper but I would have preferred they carried on a bit less ostentatiously.  The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and that's what happened with "Sherlock".  After the first season, they ceased to pace themselves and they burnt out very quickly.  Which is a shame because I think that Sherlock and John (and their actors) deserved better.  I think we the viewers deserved better.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

You make a good point -- but hopefully the BBC doesn't entirely agree with you! Seems like Moftiss have positioned themselves to either let it lie or (my preference!) segue very nicely into an updated classic Holmes. And based on their recent comments, that flexibility was their intention.

[Arcadia]

 

Holmes and Watson do become alienated in the Canon, so Mofftiss were faithful in that respect. .....

 

Did they? Do you mind if I ask why that came about? Was it something specific, or just a function of time? I hadn't heard that before, so I'm curious.

 

I have noticed that a couple of non-canon versions have Holmes and Watson alienated from one another towards the end of their lives, most notably the movie Mr. Holmes. ​I wonder where that idea got started.

[Carol the Dabbler]

This doesn't answer your actual question, but in Mr. Holmes, hadn't Watson died already? Or had they been estranged before that?

[Arcadia]

Well, I could be remembering it wrong, but I thought they'd been estranged by the outcome of the very case that Holmes revisits in the movie. And yes, Watson had since passed on, so there could never be a reconciliation. Which I found unnecessarily sad.  :'(

 

ETA: I see I'm not the only person who got the same impression: http://www.sherlockforum.com/forum/topic/2390-sir-ian-mckellen-as-mr-holmes/?p=77207 But I can't find anything to explain why we think that.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

That just gives me another excuse to watch it again.  ;)

[Artemis]

Well, I could be remembering it wrong, but I thought they'd been estranged by the outcome of the very case that Holmes revisits in the movie. And yes, Watson had since passed on, so there could never be a reconciliation. Which I found unnecessarily sad.  :'(

 

ETA: I see I'm not the only person who got the same impression: http://www.sherlockforum.com/forum/topic/2390-sir-ian-mckellen-as-mr-holmes/?p=77207 But I can't find anything to explain why we think that.

 

I don't remember the exact story as he told it, but I too recall him saying something to that effect.

 

 

[Arcadia]

That just gives me another excuse to watch it again.  ;)

 

Ha, I was thinking exactly the same thing.

[Hikari]

 

 

Holmes and Watson do become alienated in the Canon, so Mofftiss were faithful in that respect. .....

 

Did they? Do you mind if I ask why that came about? Was it something specific, or just a function of time? I hadn't heard that before, so I'm curious.

 

I have noticed that a couple of non-canon versions have Holmes and Watson alienated from one another towards the end of their lives, most notably the movie Mr. Holmes. ​I wonder where that idea got started.

 

 

Arcadia,

 

Re. Holmes' & Watson's estrangement in Canon

 

It was not one decisive event that did it.  Maybe 'estrangement' is too strong a word, as it implies that there was a huge fight.  There was a rift, from a benign cause--namely, Watson's decamping of Baker Street for married life.  As much as I admire Miss Mary Morstan as a good & forebearing woman and especially admire Watson's deep and abiding love for her--her appearance on the scene signaled a sea change in the partnership which was not entirely to the good.  John was a happier man in many respects; he had essentially replaced Sherlock with Mary as the chief companion of his life, and Mary could offer so much else besides companionship (wink).  Of course, *that*, but also the stable, contented domestic life Watson had been devoid of since leaving home.  Holmes, on the other hand, could hardly be called a happier man with the departure of his Boswell, his confidant and only friend.  In 'Sign of Four' when SH hears of Watson's engagement and his imminent departure from Baker Street, he is devastated and bereft.  He tells Watson that "I cannot congratulate you", and is wounded to his soul.  John is abandoning him for greater joys, and for himself, he sees nothing in his future but the cocaine needle--which he immediately reaches for.

 

Holmes rallies and is never anything less than cordial to Mrs. Watson, or when speaking of her, but there is a decided cooling off of the intense bond Holmes and Watson built when they were constantly in each others' pockets, sharing rooms and investigations side-by-side.  Married-man Watson resolves to dedicate himself entirely to building his medical practice now that he had a wife to support.  No more dilly-dallying around like a schoolboy solving crimes and scribbling instead of practicing his profession.  Setting up housekeeping and outfitting a practice in Paddington consumes all of his time.  He doesn't call in to Baker Street for 6 months after his marriage, and when he sees his old friend, there is a distinct distancing between them.  It's cordial, but Watson has missed a lot of water under Holmes's bridge.  Holmes has kept up his consulting practice, sans Watson, and so there are a whole bunch of cases which Watson was not involved in and only hears about in passing mention, if at all.  With the blessing of the incredibly understanding (and often absent) Mary, Watson resumes contact with Holmes and resumes his place beside him on various cases--but when there isn't an interesting game afoot, weeks or months can elapse between Watson's visits to Baker Street--a pattern which would continue throughout John's marriage to Mary.  Then of course, Holmes persuades Watson to accompany him to Switzerland in pursuit of Moriarty and pulls his own disappearing act for three years.  Holmes always maintained that his 'death'--and never informing Watson of the ruse--was a strategic necessity.  Maybe it was--but there is a strong possibility that Holmes's silence over three years carried a whiff of payback for Watson's perceived abandonment over the previous several years.

 

When Holmes resurfaced in 1894, Watson was alone again, having lost Mary while Sherlock was 'away'.  Widowed and suddenly miraculously reunited with his long-lost friend from beyond the grave, Watson was very happy to resume residence in Baker Street, and the double act was back on.  This was a prolific and happy period at Baker Street.  8 years later, in 1902 or 1903, in "The Case of the Blanched Soldier", Sherlock informs us that "Watson had deserted me for a wife", calling it the single selfish act Watson had ever done.  That was probably intended a bit tongue-in-cheek, because Watson had done the exact same thing before, in 1889.  Holmes is winding down his practice in London and contemplating retirement, so he takes Watson's second decampment for matrimony in a more resigned fashion than the first.  Over the years, both had gotten used to spending long stretches of time apart, pursuing their separate lives.

 

Watson's wives played 'Yoko Ono' in breaking up a partnership that was even more prolific, creative and intense a bond than that between Lennon & McCartney.  Even though many of Holmes and Watson's more famous cases occur during the second act of the partnership, 1895 - on, still, my favorite adventures and moments between the friends come in the earlier years of their association, 1880 - 1888.  We can hardly castigate Watson for being willing to trade his singular, if chaotic, life with Sherlock Holmes for a settled domesticity of hearth, home and the love & companionship of a partner.  It's what most of us want.  But in so doing, John almost broke the friendship entirely.  It's hard to dig beneath the surface of their rigorously polite and formal Victorian gentleman's discourse, in which to show naked emotion or even address your best friend in the world by his Christian name, was considered a gross breach of decorum . . to see the genuine and abiding regard for each other that is there.  It peeks out in snippets . . most memorably in 'The Three Garidebs'.  But to a modern reader, it sometimes seems that the Victorian notion of 'BFFs' hardly is demonstrative enough to deserve the term.

[Arcadia]

Thank you! So, it's not that they were avoiding each other, but that they just didn't make the effort to see each other?

 

I have the impression in Mr. Holmes it was truly a broken and unmended friendship. By the way, has anyone read the book that movie was based on? Worth reading?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I have the impression in Mr. Holmes it was truly a broken and unmended friendship. By the way, has anyone read the book that movie was based on? Worth reading?

Hoping someone can answer that! Must admit that I'm tempted -- off to check the Amazon reviews for A Slight Trick of the Mind.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Interesting.

So it seems like the modern John is almost the opposite of what would be the common perception from the original story.

 

So, eventhough our John is shown as someone who is leaning and longing more on crime-solving life (I don't think it's wrong perception depends on how one sees it), is it possible that during the original era, John is more likely to choose that path and like Arcadia said, doesn't make the effort to see Sherlock, because he'd rather have normal life path, married and all? At least that's how he wants to be viewed?

I'm wondering in the modern adaptation, would John get into serious relationship if Sherlock didn't jump. It looks like he makes the effort to get companions, but none of them were prioritized above Sherlock. I don't mean in romantic way.

 

 

I actually thought above Mr.Holmes couple of weeks ago, but couldn't put in coherent post before I got distracted by real life.

 

Andddd... I assume spoiler is fair?

*SPOILER FOR MR.HOLMES*

 

I thought Sherlock seems very sad when he was talking about John, but not because of broken relationship. I don't know, I got the impression that he is missing someone who always puts him on his place, his outsourced conscience. 

 

That brings me to my question, which, again, about Sherlock in John's thread.

Do you guys think this version of Sherlock is going to have regrets, just like Mr.Holmes, of his failure to understand the fragility of human feelings and importance of empathy?

I don't think this is similar with T6T, Mary and Vivian though. In there, he learned lesson about arrogance. 

I would say it's totally two different things.

 

To be honest, I think his regret in Mr.Holmes, as humane as it is, a little bit flying of the handle of Sherlock I want him to be.

He regrets not seeing the impact of human fragility and regrets that he failed to prevent the suicide. That is just basic decency in human.

However he shouldn't regret of him denying to fulfill the request of that woman.

It is never one's responsibility to do something at the sake of sacrificing your preference and principal, for the happiness of the other person.

A lot of people do that, a lot of people regret not doing that. But it is not his responsibility, not his fault, not his regrets.

It takes cold-hearted person to realize that and to stand by that despite what others demand of you, but at the same time it is a very logical and reasonable, just one cold hard truth; everyone is responsibility to own happiness, nobody owes you that and you don't owe anybody as well.

Sherlock Holmes is probably one character that would agree with that, yet, in Mr. Holmes, it seems like he switches side.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I have the impression in Mr. Holmes it was truly a broken and unmended friendship. By the way, has anyone read the book that movie was based on? Worth reading?

Hoping someone can answer that! Must admit that I'm tempted -- off to check the Amazon reviews for A Slight Trick of the Mind.

 

Having sampled the reviews, I'm still torn.  Unlike the reviews for most books, nearly all of the "most helpful" reviews are well thought out and well presented, from five stars clear down to one star.  (And I'm guessing that's "our" Hikari who appreciated one of the one-star reviews.)  I couldn't even decide whose point of view sounds more like my kind of thinking.

 

Maybe it's time to hit the used-book store?

[Arcadia]

Interesting.

So it seems like the modern John is almost the opposite of what would be the common perception from the original story.

 

So, eventhough our John is shown as someone who is leaning and longing more on crime-solving life (I don't think it's wrong perception depends on how one sees it), is it possible that during the original era, John is more likely to choose that path and like Arcadia said, doesn't make the effort to see Sherlock, because he'd rather have normal life path, married and all? At least that's how he wants to be viewed?

I'm wondering in the modern adaptation, would John get into serious relationship if Sherlock didn't jump. It looks like he makes the effort to get companions, but none of them were prioritized above Sherlock. I don't mean in romantic way.

 

 

I actually thought above Mr.Holmes couple of weeks ago, but couldn't put in coherent post before I got distracted by real life.

 

Andddd... I assume spoiler is fair?

*SPOILER FOR MR.HOLMES*

 

I thought Sherlock seems very sad when he was talking about John, but not because of broken relationship. I don't know, I got the impression that he is missing someone who always puts him on his place, his outsourced conscience. 

 

That brings me to my question, which, again, about Sherlock in John's thread.

Do you guys think this version of Sherlock is going to have regrets, just like Mr.Holmes, of his failure to understand the fragility of human feelings and importance of empathy?

I don't think this is similar with T6T, Mary and Vivian though. In there, he learned lesson about arrogance. 

I would say it's totally two different things.

 

To be honest, I think his regret in Mr.Holmes, as humane as it is, a little bit flying of the handle of Sherlock I want him to be.

He regrets not seeing the impact of human fragility and regrets that he failed to prevent the suicide. That is just basic decency in human.

However he shouldn't regret of him denying to fulfill the request of that woman.

It is never one's responsibility to do something at the sake of sacrificing your preference and principal, for the happiness of the other person.

A lot of people do that, a lot of people regret not doing that. But it is not his responsibility, not his fault, not his regrets.

It takes cold-hearted person to realize that and to stand by that despite what others demand of you, but at the same time it is a very logical and reasonable, just one cold hard truth; everyone is responsibility to own happiness, nobody owes you that and you don't owe anybody as well.

Sherlock Holmes is probably one character that would agree with that, yet, in Mr. Holmes, it seems like he switches side.

Hmmmm.

 

I admit, I don't remember Mr. Holmes well enough to address that part of your question; whether he bore any responsibility for the woman's death or not.

 

As for "our" Sherlock ... I would say yes, he has and will have regrets about his little failures of empathy, and that his lesson about arrogance is tied in with that. That is, they're all part of the same lesson, which is, whether you like it or not, other people's feelings are worth taking care of, because it makes it easier for us all to get along ... ? Or something like that.

 

But I think "our" Sherlock has been learning that all along, not just in T6T. That's been John's role from the beginning, and later Molly's, and even to some extent Eurus' ... to show Sherlock that emulating Mycroft and his "caring is not an advantage" philosophy is not the best way to help people. And he does seem to want to help people, even if he pretends it's just the intellectual stimulus he's after.

 

That's how I've always seen him, anyway; gradually moving towards the idea that empathy makes him better, not worse, at his job.

[Hikari]

 

I have the impression in Mr. Holmes it was truly a broken and unmended friendship. By the way, has anyone read the book that movie was based on? Worth reading?

Hoping someone can answer that! Must admit that I'm tempted -- off to check the Amazon reviews for A Slight Trick of the Mind.

 

Having sampled the reviews, I'm still torn.  Unlike the reviews for most books, nearly all of the "most helpful" reviews are well thought out and well presented, from five stars clear down to one star.  (And I'm guessing that's "our" Hikari who appreciated one of the one-star reviews.)  I couldn't even decide whose point of view sounds more like my kind of thinking.

 

Maybe it's time to hit the used-book store?

 

 

Carol,

You're going to have to provide the link to the review you mention has my name in the comments.  I remember reading many of these reviews when the movie was newer.  I do not recall 'liking' any one-star reviews for either the book or the movie, since I haven't read the book, and enjoyed the movie a good deal.  The only way I'd comment favorably on a one-star review for this project is if the reviewer had gotten confused and put down one star when he meant five.

 

It's been a few years and the old brain isn't quite what it used to be, so I'd appreciate the chapter and verse of the review which you are referring to.  Amazon does not allow one to search for comments posted to other people's reviews under my own name.  To my knowledge, I am the only Hikari on Amazon US, so it was probably me, but I'd like to clarify which you are speaking of.

 

In my opinion, the great majority of Amazon users who post one-star reviews are morons.  I can really dig a negative review if it's well done.  Saying 'This movie SUCKS!' doesn't review anything expect the reviewers own woeful lack of vocabulary, typing skills or both.  I can't speak fully to the novel, not having read it, but I can only suppose it to be if anything, superior to the very evocative, gentle, sad film made out of it.

 

An acquaintance of mine refuses to watch this film and by extension read the book because he derides what he calls the 'decreptitude of the Icon.'  He doesn't want to see Sherlock Holmes contending with the ills of old age that come to us all (if we are blessed with long life).  He will state with all seriousness that SH is still on the Downs, tending the bees . . though he would be 163 years old, and one would suppose that *someone* would have snapped a photo of him by now.  He's as elusive as Bigfoot.

 

The movie is gently paced and I'm sure the book is the same.  Or what the One star brigade calls "Slow as hell!"

 

I can't remember if there's any reason for estrangement between Holmes and Watson given in the film.  It's very possible that Watson is dead, seeing as Holmes is 93.  Most Sherlockian scholars say that Holmes outlived Watson by 30 years.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Having sampled the reviews, I'm still torn.  Unlike the reviews for most books, nearly all of the "most helpful" reviews are well thought out and well presented, from five stars clear down to one star.  (And I'm guessing that's "our" Hikari who appreciated one of the one-star reviews.)  I couldn't even decide whose point of view sounds more like my kind of thinking.

 

Carol,

You're going to have to provide the link to the review you mention has my name in the comments.  I remember reading many of these reviews when the movie was newer.  I do not recall 'liking' any one-star reviews for either the book or the movie, since I haven't read the book, and enjoyed the movie a good deal.  The only way I'd comment favorably on a one-star review for this project is if the reviewer had gotten confused and put down one star when he meant five.

 

It's been a few years and the old brain isn't quite what it used to be, so I'd appreciate the chapter and verse of the review which you are referring to.  Amazon does not allow one to search for comments posted to other people's reviews under my own name.  To my knowledge, I am the only Hikari on Amazon US, so it was probably me, but I'd like to clarify which you are speaking of.

 

In my opinion, the great majority of Amazon users who post one-star reviews are morons.  I can really dig a negative review if it's well done.  Saying 'This movie SUCKS!' doesn't review anything expect the reviewers own woeful lack of vocabulary, typing skills or both.  I can't speak fully to the novel, not having read it, but I can only suppose it to be if anything, superior to the very evocative, gentle, sad film made out of it.

Your comment is the first one following this two-star review.  I was reasonably sure it was really you because it was so long.  ;)  (By the way, I am also Carol the Dabbler on Amazon.com, but some of the reviews were written by Alex.)

 

I agree that most one- or two-star reviews are roughly worthless, but I always check, because sometimes they're actually helpful, like "this product broke after two months" (whereas most of the glowing four- and five-star reviews of that product talk about how easy it was to set up, or even how pretty it was in the box).  As I mentioned above, I was impressed by how many really meaty one- and two-star reviews this book had -- and equally impressed by the number of really meaty four- and five-star reviews.  This leads me to believe that one's opinion of the book is very much a matter of taste.

 

Several of the low-raters mentioned they didn't like it that ...

 

 

the housekeeper's son dies in the book

 

 

... nor that the book seems like three separate stories alternating, rather than interconnected as in the movie.  So those people presumably saw the movie first, and were unpleasantly surprised by the differences, which seems perfectly understandable to me.

 

I am still torn.

[Van Buren Supernova]

I admit, I don't remember Mr. Holmes well enough to address that part of your question; whether he bore any responsibility for the woman's death or not.

Could be very wrong, because I don't remember it well too.

But I seem to recall that the woman actually suggested that they shared their loneliness together which Holmes refused. She committed suicide. Although she was suicidal before, and Holmes prevented that, he blamed himself for the subsequent suicide after his so called rejection.

 

As for "our" Sherlock ... I would say yes, he has and will have regrets about his little failures of empathy, and that his lesson about arrogance is tied in with that. That is, they're all part of the same lesson, which is, whether you like it or not, other people's feelings are worth taking care of, because it makes it easier for us all to get along ... ? Or something like that.

But to what end?

Ordinary, necessary empathy, I would agree although I would stand that we don't need to take care of other people's feelings up to their standard, which could be very very unreasonable, I tell ya mister.

Not to mention emotional manipulations, but I know you are not talking about those.

 

But I think "our" Sherlock has been learning that all along, not just in T6T. That's been John's role from the beginning, and later Molly's, and even to some extent Eurus' ... to show Sherlock that emulating Mycroft and his "caring is not an advantage" philosophy is not the best way to help people. And he does seem to want to help people, even if he pretends it's just the intellectual stimulus he's after.

 

That's how I've always seen him, anyway; gradually moving towards the idea that empathy makes him better, not worse, at his job.

Right. I buy that actually.

But in specific case of Mr. Holmes, I think I disagree that he has that deep regret for her suicide. It's not his cross to bear.

 

Just like bizarre relationship of one person threatens to end their lives should the other won't stay.

As difficult as it is, I don't think one should stay and should have regrets if the other person really makes good of their threat. Would be easier said then done though.

What do you guys think?

[Arcadia]

 

As for "our" Sherlock ... I would say yes, he has and will have regrets about his little failures of empathy, and that his lesson about arrogance is tied in with that. That is, they're all part of the same lesson, which is, whether you like it or not, other people's feelings are worth taking care of, because it makes it easier for us all to get along ... ? Or something like that.

But to what end?

Ordinary, necessary empathy, I would agree although I would stand that we don't need to take care of other people's feelings up to their standard, which could be very very unreasonable, I tell ya mister.

Not to mention emotional manipulations, but I know you are not talking about those.

 

Right, and I would add that although there is an advantage in taking care with other people's feelings, there's also an advantage in taking care with your own. One doesn't always negate the other, but sometimes you have to choose. To routinely choose to ride roughshod over the feelings of others, though, just causes unnecessary grief, imo. And in the case of Mrs. Norbury, it turned out to be lethal.

 

 

But I think "our" Sherlock has been learning that all along, not just in T6T. That's been John's role from the beginning, and later Molly's, and even to some extent Eurus' ... to show Sherlock that emulating Mycroft and his "caring is not an advantage" philosophy is not the best way to help people. And he does seem to want to help people, even if he pretends it's just the intellectual stimulus he's after.

 

That's how I've always seen him, anyway; gradually moving towards the idea that empathy makes him better, not worse, at his job.

Right. I buy that actually.

But in specific case of Mr. Holmes, I think I disagree that he has that deep regret for her suicide. It's not his cross to bear.

 

Just like bizarre relationship of one person threatens to end their lives should the other won't stay.

As difficult as it is, I don't think one should stay and should have regrets if the other person really makes good of their threat. Would be easier said then done though.

What do you guys think?

 

I think I would feel regret, and maybe guilt, that I didn't see it coming, or do more to prevent it, or ... something.

 

But would I feel responsible? No way of knowing unless it happened to me, I suspect, but my instinct is that no, I wouldn't ... unless it was expressly my "job" to prevent such a thing. But that can get dicey too, because sometimes it's hard to know exactly what your responsibility really is. 

 

Not much of an answer, I know, but I firmly believe that life is complicated and there's usually no easy answer. That's why I get twitchy when people propose "simple" solutions for complex systems, such as government. Seems to me "simple" all too often just means it's to the advantage of the person proposing it .......

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Or maybe they're ignoring a lot of "trivial" details. It's just human nature to pick somebody else's proposal to bits while seeing only the *intention* of your own proposal.

[Boton]

 

 

Re. Holmes' & Watson's estrangement in Canon

 

 

 

Dang, Hikari.  That was one masterful post.  

[T.o.b.y]

I sometimes wonder whether we read more into the Doyle stories than the author put in (just like we do with the BBC show ;-D). For example, Doyle couldn't keep the location of Watson's war wound straight or his Christian name, for that matter - are we sure he was consistent with dates? Did he really intend to say that Dr Watson got married again (or six times as some claim) or did he just shift the year of that marriage around to suit his current fancy?

 

Not that it matters. It's more fun to find in-universe explanations for things anyway.

[Pseudonym]

Six times? Lol, now that would be a twist, Watson is actually a serial killer, always marrying and then murdering, but because one wife looks the same as another to Holmes he never cottons on.  :lol:

[Hikari]

 

Having sampled the reviews, I'm still torn.  Unlike the reviews for most books, nearly all of the "most helpful" reviews are well thought out and well presented, from five stars clear down to one star.  (And I'm guessing that's "our" Hikari who appreciated one of the one-star reviews.)  I couldn't even decide whose point of view sounds more like my kind of thinking.

 

Carol,

You're going to have to provide the link to the review you mention has my name in the comments.  I remember reading many of these reviews when the movie was newer.  I do not recall 'liking' any one-star reviews for either the book or the movie, since I haven't read the book, and enjoyed the movie a good deal.  The only way I'd comment favorably on a one-star review for this project is if the reviewer had gotten confused and put down one star when he meant five.

 

It's been a few years and the old brain isn't quite what it used to be, so I'd appreciate the chapter and verse of the review which you are referring to.  Amazon does not allow one to search for comments posted to other people's reviews under my own name.  To my knowledge, I am the only Hikari on Amazon US, so it was probably me, but I'd like to clarify which you are speaking of.

 

In my opinion, the great majority of Amazon users who post one-star reviews are morons.  I can really dig a negative review if it's well done.  Saying 'This movie SUCKS!' doesn't review anything expect the reviewers own woeful lack of vocabulary, typing skills or both.  I can't speak fully to the novel, not having read it, but I can only suppose it to be if anything, superior to the very evocative, gentle, sad film made out of it.

Your comment is the first one following this two-star review.  I was reasonably sure it was really you because it was so long.  ;)  (By the way, I am also Carol the Dabbler on Amazon.com, but some of the reviews were written by Alex.)

 

I agree that most one- or two-star reviews are roughly worthless, but I always check, because sometimes they're actually helpful, like "this product broke after two months" (whereas most of the glowing four- and five-star reviews of that product talk about how easy it was to set up, or even how pretty it was in the box).  As I mentioned above, I was impressed by how many really meaty one- and two-star reviews this book had -- and equally impressed by the number of really meaty four- and five-star reviews.  This leads me to believe that one's opinion of the book is very much a matter of taste.

 

Several of the low-raters mentioned they didn't like it that ...

 

 

the housekeeper's son dies in the book

 

 

... nor that the book seems like three separate stories alternating, rather than interconnected as in the movie.  So those people presumably saw the movie first, and were unpleasantly surprised by the differences, which seems perfectly understandable to me.

 

I am still torn.

 

 

Ah, yes, that was me.  In your previous comment you said it was a 1-star review, which is why I couldn't find it.  You also lent the impression that I was agreeing with it, which I was not, in fact--though as I said in my comment, I haven't read the book, so can't advise you about buying it.

 

I appreciated this reviewer's argument, and the time he obviously took in crafting a well-written negative review, which is an important distinction from agreeing with his conclusions.  It seems to me, having enjoyed the film and thought it well-done that I would likewise like the source material.  Though having seen the film, and having thousands of Holmes pastiches that are still new and undiscovered, I decided not to buy this one, at least not now.

 

For me that's a relatively short comment! . . especially compared to the review I was commenting on.  It's so rare to find any reviewers any more who can put more than three sentences together coherently, never mind 10 or 15 paragraphs--I wanted to give him props for taking that time.