How about Holmes telling Watson to "engage a front room and purchase the necessaries for the night." (Three-Quarter). Nekosmuse and her followers interpret that as Holmes telling Watson to buy lube. 

Regardless, he definitely refers to one "room," not "rooms."

That same story also contains Watson's confession that he has lost touch with the medical field...clearly, working with Holmes was his full-time career by then.

Holmes certainly has stereotypical ideas about women...but do you notice that he hardly ever turns any women over to Scotland Yard, (even when they're involved in the crimes), and will sometimes cover up a crime to protect a woman (like ABBE)?

All the talk about what to call Cumberbatch fans got me thinking about wordplay on the names.


I'm not even sure what all of these words would mean...

Benediction...

Benaddiction...

Benedictum

Cumberbachelor

Cumberbachelorette

Cumberbuns (there is a piece of formal men's clothing called a cumberbun, which I'm sure BC sometimes wears, but it could also mean...you know.

Cumberband



Sherlockution (this one I didn't make up, I found it somewhere else, referring to famous lines from canon)

And whichever "ship" you favor, there are a lot of good "ship" names:

Adlock
Sherene
Mollock
Molliarty
Holmesper? (Holmes + Hooper)
Watstan (Morstan + Watson)
Mystrade
Molstrade

I am a fan of Holmes/Watson as a pairing but I'm not such a fan of Johnlock as a name. 

Is there no room for "different" in this culture?  I fear to think how Leonardo Da Vinci would have fared.

Well, there's a trend today toward diagnosing EVERYBODY with something.

I'm not sure the "genius equal mentally illl" thing is specific to any one time period. There was a time we didn't talk so much in terms of mental health diagnoses but I'm not sure "genius" or "different" has ever been fully accepted...I don't think Da Vinci was really appreciated in his own time.

And in canon, Watson does use words like "manic" and "depression," to refer to Holmes' changing moods.

I am actually an "Aspie," too. 

You will see how my posts begin to reflect the way I over-analyze everything.

But I'm more like Watson - in my tendency to obsess over somebody or something the way he does about Sherlock. 


I could never have Sherlock's career because I'm not nearly that observant of small details in my environment.

But on the other hand, I sometimes feel other people's feelings. My mom works with kids who need special education services: when she talks to me about being angry because the schools won't provide services, I get angry.

Here's a related, and perhaps troubling question: what makes Sherlock unique or different today? 

In Victorian times, his disinclination toward socializing, his ability to tell off authority figures, and to some extent, his advanced knowledge of criminology, made him an eccentric.

Today, we're always hearing that lack of empathy and other borderline-sociopathic traits are increasingly common, especially in younger people. Certainly the MEDIA is full of characters who are broken / damaged / dysfunctional / addicted in some way.

One of the places where this series has really deviated from canon is in giving both boys too many other people to be attracted to.

In the originals, I don't know if Holmes and Watson were gay, but they lived together and acted like "life partners" in every other sense much of the time. Even when Watson was married and had his own medical practice,  he dropped everything when Holmes came to him for help. And he pretty much only had one love interest / marriage - Mary. 

Canon-Holmes may have been asexual, but there is NO doubt that the human being he cares for most in the world is Watson. He is mean to Watson sometimes, but not to the degree of this series.

He did try to talk to Watson out of getting married, and, during the years of Watson's marriage, seemed to come up with every excuse to go and see him (even when it was clear his assistance wasn't really needed for the case.)

In canon, Holmes really didn't have much interaction with Irene Adler at all; in this series there was WAY too much sexual tension between them. 

Then there's Molly, whom he is mean to, but also kisses at one point, and who is apparently in on the faked death. (Which means he confided in her when he didn't confide in John.)

I guess my point is, their relationship doesn't have to be sexual, but canonically, Sherlock, at least, should love Watson or no one. If Sherlock Holmes is not receptive to sex of any kind, fine; but don't have him be more attracted to / distracted by a woman than by Watson.

Northwest part, very close to the Michigan border.

MahnSherlolly03 wrote:

Mary Me wrote:

dartmoordoggers wrote:

Are there that many women; apart from Molly, who do fall for him in the earlier episodes?

I can see it being a thing now. After all Sherlock is a good looking young detective that regularly features on the TV, newspapers and blogs. 'the famous Mr. Holmes.'

In the real world the crew try to keep the fans out of shot; but perversely in Sherlock world it would be quite normal for fans of the detective to congregate outside of 221B hoping to catch a glimpse and maybe an autograph. After all 'brainy is the new sexy'.

What woman had the chance to approach him in the earlier episodes? Rudeness often undermines good looks. 

Yeah, I sometimes wonder why Molly even liked him. I wonder if she saw a side of him besides the cold, rude detective?

I really wonder about Molly too...and John, frankly. I see what people see in Benedict, but I have trouble with they see in this version of Sherlock. He is just TOO MEAN. Makes it harder to believe in "Johnlock." Canon-Holmes, and Brett's Holmes, had mean streaks, but there was more...I don't know...romance, in their relationships with their Watsons.

And because it WAS the Victorian era, it was easier to believe that there were things going on that weren't shown, because they couldn't be shown. In today's media, there's not much need for subtext.

With regard to the question of men's or women's "virtue": in the original "Scandal in Bohemia" of canon, we are supposed to believe that a King will be "ruined," in that his princess-fiance will not marry him, if she learns of his past relationship with Irene Adler (of which Irene has proof). because the princess is just that puritanical. I guess I would sort of have thought that queens and princesses of that time would accept their husbands doing such thing...or just blame it all on the woman involved. I kind of think that really, the King wanted to disgrace Irene in the eyes of her new husband.
 

Oh, and to follow up on my discussion of Anderson vs. John: Doesn't John  have a line something like,  "The press always turn. They'll turn against you?"

Which turns out to be accurate, of course, but I don't like that it was John who told Sherlock that. I want John to be caught up in the Sherlock-worship. In canon, he's much more that: there are lines where he calls Holmes his "master," and "the man whom above all others I revere."

Sherlock Holmes does not usually have as many female admirers as he does in this series. (The Irene Adler of canon is not REMOTELY into him.)

Does anyone think that they have women falling for Sherlock to reflect how women feel about Benedict? That the females who are in love with Sherlock, in-universe, are sort of mouthpieces for female Benedict fans?

(I imagine, when Scandal in Belgravia is on):

Irene: I would have you, right here on this desk, 'til you beg for mercy twice.

Female viewers watching: "Get in line, Irene" or "You and me both."