Vhanja wrote:

I didn't say there weren't any such scenes. I said that there seemed to be much more of the other type of scenes, the ones where John is more or less constantly annoyed by how Sherlock behaves. And that made me ponder a bit, because I find it to be a slightly odd writer decision when you are portraying one of the best friendship stories there is.

What I feel and think about Johnlock isn't really relevant in this thread. 

Well, for me Johnlock also does come into play when we're talking about this, but okay, if it's not relevant for you here, then let's drop it.
 

True, but he seems annoyed even before the “final lash out”(when Molly comes in, when Janet talks to him etc.). And John in turn seems to get a bit fed up with him (Yes, back on topic!) busting everyone’s Christmas-hopes.
 

Lola Red wrote:

True, but he seems annoyed even before the “final lash out”(when Molly comes in, when Janet talks to him etc.). And John in turn seems to get a bit fed up with him (Yes, back on topic!) busting everyone’s Christmas-hopes. 

This is true. He even does a mocking "Oh, everybody is saying "hello"". He is already in a state, and I'm not sure why. But as you said, could be Christmas in general. Although he was much more subdued with his parents (where Mycroft was the one with the childish tantrum, interestingly enough).

It is clear that John is a strong person, and that he would leave Sherlock if he felt like it. He doesn't. So the question is - does it come across well enough in the show why he doesn't leave? Why he sticks around even though Sherlock treats him quite badly most of the times? 
 

SolarSystem wrote:

Well, for me Johnlock also does come into play when we're talking about this, but okay, if it's not relevant for you here, then let's drop it.
 

I don't mind if other people talk about Johnlock, if it's relevant for the thread in their view and their reply. Of course not. I'm not dictating what's relevant for other people. 

But to answer your question in a more general way - to me, it's the complexity of the show that I love. The complexity of the characters. Nothing, absolutely nothing and no character (more or less) is black or white. And certainly not Sherlock or John. They are all so wonderfully, fascinatingly grey. Nothing is straight-forward, nothing is simple - sometimes frustratingly so. 

It seems some people on the board here gets a bit confused as to why I can say so much bad things about Sherlock, how I can even like him if I think he is that horrible a person. Or how I can ship Johnlock when I view the characters as I do. But I don't see the trouble at all. Sherlock can be the biggest prat in history sometimes - yet also the most loyal, sweet and adorable friend anyone can wish for. John probably want to smack Sherlock over the head twice a day (and have even done so once), but still loves him. 

THAT is the mystery of it. That is why I love about these characters! Square-jawed heroes in shining armour with no flaws are so boring they lull me to sleep within a minute. But these gorgeously complex characters fascinates me to no end.

So for me, the topic of this thread is just one of many interesting aspects of these two guys. Another piece of the puzzle.

Last edited by Vhanja (February 4, 2015 4:22 pm)

Well, something I meant to say earlier and forgot because I got distracted by Johnlock (tends to happen...).
So this is about statistics now? We categorize certain types of scenes, then we count how many scenes belong to category A, how many belong to category B and so forth (by the way, has anyone really counted or is this just a loose count in our heads?) - and the result is: quantity is more important than quality?
Having more scenes that show us a grumpy, cruel Sherlock John is annoyed by doesn't necessarily mean to me that they are of a bigger importance than fewer scenes with Sherlock and John having fun and enjoying each others company when you look at it on the whole. The quality of those scenes are the important factor for me. Do the scenes in which Sherlock and John can be seen as friends who cleaarly like each other appear more important to me, do they outweigh those other scenes because they have that certain quality to them that makes everything else look less important...?
I have long answered that question for myself.
 

John suffers a lot for Sherlock without choosing it consciously.
Sherlock suffers a lot for John but choosing to.
That's my impression, and it might explain why John is always that bit angrier.

I think as soon as they're even, the smiling will become more.

I think John often gets into trouble because of Sherlock (meeting Mycroft, being put in bonfires, strapped to semtex), or Sherlock gets people in trouble, and John's angry and upset - for himself, for Sherlock, for innocent victims. Because Sherlock doesn't even apologize.

On the other hand, I think Sherlock realises this and tries to make up for it, and he does this by going all the way to help John (as seen in HLV). But John cannot see it for what it is, I suppose.

So yes, I agree it's a misunderstanding basically.
If John understood what Sherlock is doing there, or rather why, he would calm down I think. Sherlock acts very much in the way "show-don't tell", but I think John understands telling much better and has problems to interpret the things Sherlock only shows through his actions.
 

Last edited by Whisky (February 4, 2015 5:13 pm)

Whisky wrote:

John suffers a lot for Sherlock without choosing it consciously.
Sherlock suffers a lot for John but choosing to.
That's my impression, and it might explain why John is always that bit angrier.
 

That was an excellent summary. How to put so much into so few words. 

I think you managed to put my mind at ease with this whole issue with only three sentences. That's a record. 

Last edited by Vhanja (February 4, 2015 5:08 pm)

Your editing made your point a bit different from my interpretation (just a tad). But that doesn't really matter, because my mind is still at ease with how I saw what you wrote.

Lola Red wrote:

I don't quite get what you mean. Can you go into more detail?

edit: Thank you for explaining.

I do not see that John is angry about “getting into trouble” (nice wording). I feel it is exactly what he needs to function. I think this is what makes him gravitate towards Sherlock, because, as Mycroft put it “When you walk with Sherlock Holmes, you see the battlefield” and John needs that. As soon as he does not have that anymore (and is not numbed by grief) his PTSD plays up. I agree that John gets upset when innocents are in danger, especially when Sherlock does not seem to care. But I don’t think he gets upset about him getting swept along in Sherlock’s adventures.
 

I see it in the same manner - Sherlock´s behaviour that could be offputting for other people is actually intriguing for John and it firmly binds him to Sherlock´s side.

John acts as if he was an "ordinary" person but he is anything but - he craves the danger, craves the unexpected. And Sherlock fullfills his needs best of all people.

I just wonder why John would be still irriated by Sherlock. Especially by the daily behaviour.
I know that from my friends... some have a tendency to annoy me. Probably because they trigger something which I didn't like in the first place.
I either get used to it, or I get rid of the friends. Sounds harsh, but there are only so many possibilities, because in the end you cannot force a friendship against odds. It might be okay for a while, because both really try, but on the long run... no. Because changing someone will never work completely, and I am very sure that although Sherlock is in a process of change, there is a core to him characterwise that won't change.
If your explanation was true, I would expect John to relax over time, or to snap more often and finally leave.
But I feel like there is a fine but firm string that keeps John next to Sherlock despite his suffering, as you put it. So John puts up with someone who annoys him a lot, but still stays? That hints to a weak character, which I think John is not, or to some other need that's bigger than his annoyance.
Could be the danger. Could be closeness that keeps him from loneliness. Could be love. Could be "something that happens to him".

I think it puts John in a very tough place though. Would mean Sherlock is the reason he suffers and also the reason he is finally having a good life.

Which sounds an awful lot like love, and I am not even a Johnlocker. But things like that make it come up.

Apart from that, John spend a lot of time with Sherlock and although he gets annoyed, he called him "best friend". That tells me he is very ready to put up with most of Sherlock's eccentrics. And he says "best friend" after a hard time, not in the very beginning of their friendship.
Remember THOB... they quite struggle to spell out the word friends. John offers it, Sherlock rejects it, then Sherlock advances and calls John his only friend, John silently acknowledges it. And it's a theme that is all over the series. If John was suffering a lot without benefits, he wouldn't be around Sherlock anymore. There has to be pay-off.
(I don't believe in very uneven friendships, not really. Love yes. Friendship no.)

Maybe at some point it becomes impossible to entangle. Maybe that's simply why things are like they are. Because they are in a place none of them can leave easily.
 

Last edited by Whisky (February 4, 2015 7:58 pm)