Great topic!

I, for one, have always allowed myself to extrapolate further from the few hints that the writer(s) provide.  Intellectually, it seems foolish to veer off into fantasy land, but I do think that most fiction would be very flat and unsatisfying if the reader were only to accept the written words.

The reader (and John Watson) wait a very long time for the moment in my signature line, but it says so much about their relationship.  John has his own reasons for staying and working with Sherlock, but demonstrative affection is not one of them.  Nevertheless, he is genuinely touched when the moment comes.  And it doesn't change a thing.

Just after the scene with Mycroft that you mention, John is carefully feeling his way around Sherlock's emotions.  He's being intuitive and practical, but fiercely protective at the same time.  He's about to tell him that Irene is, if fact, dead when Sherlock asks for the phone and John instantly picks up on something inviolate.

It will be interesting to follow this thread!

I have had arguments with people (well, my sister) about things that we have both been involved in but interpret differently. So, every one has a different point of view. In the books, Watson's is the only point of view we have, so I feel we have to trust him unless there are clear indications that he is wrong, whereas with the TV show, events can be shown that John is not present at. In The Reichenbach Falls (book) Watson believes,and we believe, that Holmes is dead. But in Sherlock, John believes that Sherlock is dead but we know that he is alive. So, different points of view.

kazza474 wrote:

[Very common-sense answer.
ALL any of us knows about the character of Holmes has been given to us by Watson. Yes, 4 stories were written from another narrators's perspective but by that time, the character was well established and nothing in those 4 stories wavered from what we knew. We need to remember however that even the perspective of Watson came from one source only ACD.
People can play psychologist & psychoanalyse Holmes or Watson as much as they like, the fact remains he is a fictitious character with set parameters.
All this amateur character extrapolation is mere fantasy which doesn't sit with the whole premise of the Sherlock Holmes canon, which is based on scientific analysis and deduction.
I think in this thread canon matters have been mistakenly identified with the Moffatt/Gatiss interpretation.The lines are blurring, or maybe they were never defined for some to start with.
I'd also be careful using the word "Gospel", that term belongs to subjects surrounding Christianity & last time I looked, Holmes has nothing to do with Christianity.

I knew this was going to be a controversial thread and one that would invite some heated opinions and I say bully for that. That is what makes this intelligent community great. Thanks for participating, kazza. A few points/comments/questions in rebuttal to your statements:

kazza474 wrote:

I'd also be careful using the word "Gospel", that term belongs to subjects surrounding Christianity & last time I looked, Holmes has nothing to do with Christianity.

gos·pel (gspl)
n.
1. often Gospel The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.
2.
a. Gospel Bible One of the first four New Testament books, describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and recording his teaching.
b. A similar narrative.
3. often Gospel A lection from any of the first four New Testament books included as part of a religious service.
4. A teaching or doctrine of a religious teacher.
5. Music Gospel music.
6. Something, such as an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true: My parents' rules were gospel.
adj.
1. often Gospel Of or in accordance with the Gospel; evangelical.
2. Of or relating to gospel music.

kazza474 wrote:

People can play psychologist & psychoanalyse Holmes or Watson as much as they like, the fact remains he is a fictitious character with set parameters.

To me the idea of a "fictitious character with set parameters" is a bit of problematic concept. How does one define and limit human behavior? Are you saying that if all of us read Catcher in The Rye or Slaughterhouse 5 or Little Women or David Copperfield, that we will all interpret and define Holden Cauflield, Billy Pilgrim, Jo or Mr. Micawber the same way? I think not, nor do I believe that is the author's intent. Written fiction is not a tech manual or an owner's manual of defned instructions. It invites and challenges us to imagination. If that had not been ACD's intent he could have opted instead to write Sunday Brain Teaser puzzles to keep the damn humanistic element out of it

kazza474 wrote:

I think in this thread canon matters have been mistakenly identified with the Moffatt/Gatiss interpretation.The lines are blurring, or maybe they were never defined for some to start with. ].

Perhaps. But it was never my intent to put a strict construct or definition on an abstract idea. My premise is that Moftiss are suggesting to us that perhaps Watson's view may be a tad skewed because he does not yet fully understand Holmes. That was my intended focus. I did not start this thread on a Baker Street Irregular forum. I posted it on the Sherlock forum because we are fans of this television interpretation and portrayal.

Last edited by Sentimental Pulse (June 26, 2012 2:23 pm)

hypergreenfrog wrote:

Yet, why are we so keen on interpreting the characteristics and fates of these fictional personae, that it has lead to these characters not only being used as inspiration for new works of art (paintings, songs etc.), but that they are even used to describe psychological phenomena (e.g. Oedipus complex)? Why have generations of students written essays on every member of the Buddenbrooks family?
Why, in short, do we care about them?
I cannot give you a scientific answer, but I strongly believe that the mystery behind fiction, the "blanks" left by the authors, is what draws us towards it, makes us want to find answers,"play psychologist" if you like.
Because Sherlock Holmes never WAS, he can be everything, be anything. His personality may be set by the description ACD gave of the man, but it is not limited to it.

Indeed, very perceptive HGF. In my opinion there has never been a great novel/story/play written that did not contain both depth and complexity of characters and also major conflict that those characters needed to deal with and navigate. For all the wonderful puzzles and displays of investigative genius in Sherlock Holmes, these stories are chiefly remembered for SH's eccentricities and complexities. These complexities were made even harder to decipher and untangle because of that which was left open to interpretation and never really addressed.

Last edited by Sentimental Pulse (June 26, 2012 6:52 pm)

Hurray, Kazza approves of somehting I posted! I feel overcome 

Anyway, youze guys are using too many big words and are making my brain hurt 

To project this onto the Sherlock series....I think Moftiss are showing us their interpretation of Sherlock and John BASED ON Watson's interpretation of himself and Holmes from the canon, so there is bound to be some influence of Watson's opnion there, whether that is correct or not. Forgive me for talking like the canon is real but for the purposes of this discussion it's easier to imagine it so!

Well it is the blueprint isn't it? You can't change the foundations without the house coming down; especially an Empty House.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

I hate it when people try to insist Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character. Dull.

No...BORRRRRING