BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Your Victor Trevor headcanons

RavenMorganLeigh · August 1, 2015 3:12 am

You're welcome!

Honestly, I think fandom animosity towards Victor probably has to do with the hyper-romantic idea that "there can be only One True Love", and for most, it's John who fits the bill, with no possibility of anyone else for Sherlock, EVER.

Keep in mind though, that Victor was friends with Sherlock first, not John. And Sherlock went and stayed with Victor, for month , during a school break!

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (August 1, 2015 3:13 am)

Vhanja · August 1, 2015 9:24 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Honestly, I think fandom animosity towards Victor probably has to do with the hyper-romantic idea that "there can be only One True Love", and for most, it's John who fits the bill, with no possibility of anyone else for Sherlock, EVER.

That's how it is for some of us shippers. ;)

In real life, I don't believe in that idea. I agree that it's hyper-romantic and it's not founded in anything real. However, I don't ship Johnlock, or read Johnlock fics, for the realism. It's a fantasy, a daydream, a spice in everyday life. So in my headcanon, it's only the two of them.

Last edited by Vhanja (August 1, 2015 9:35 am)

Dorothy83 · August 1, 2015 10:49 am

because everybody's free to explore the subject the way they want... and I think that's interesting because it generates different versions and POVs. This is why it's important to not have just a 'bad Victor Trevor' fanon theory

ps Sherlock went to chapel???

nakahara · August 1, 2015 9:15 pm

Dorothy83 wrote:
ps Sherlock went to chapel???

Allthrough he is all brain and reason and science, deep down Sherlock is also spiritual, as proved by this excerpt from The Adventure of the Naval Treaty:

He walked past the couch to the open window, and held up the drooping stalk of a moss-rose, looking down at the dainty blend of crimson and green. It was a new phase of his character to me, for I had never before seen him show any keen interest in natural objects.

“There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion,” said he, leaning with his back against the shutters. “It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers.”

So it´s possible that he attends chapels sometimes. Plus, it could also be, that attendance of the Mass was compulsory at some universities in Victorian times.

Sherlock Holmes · August 1, 2015 9:23 pm

Nice quote, although I think it's slightly taken out of context, because I'm fairly sure Holmes was only ranting and raving over the rose because he was secretly examining the window and window sill on which it was sat, and didn't want to draw unneccessary attention to himself, therefore he sort of went off on one to make it seem more innocent.

nakahara · August 1, 2015 9:25 pm

Then I think my other suggestion may be the right one: the attendance of the chapel might be compulsory.

nakahara · August 1, 2015 9:37 pm

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Dorothy83 wrote:
I think the reason a lot of people (including me) find it hard to imagine Sherlock giving himself over completely to someone other than John is that the kind of love Sherlock has shown for John is so unconditional and encompassing that it can't just be pushed aside or forgotten. John is his pressure point, the most important person for him, so it's going to be hard for him to move on completely. I think Sherlock would go as far as accepting attention and care, even love, from someone else - someone like Victor, whom he knows already and who he doesn't need to learn to trust and appreciate from scratch - but it will be unlikely for this person to take John's place.
The thing is-- Sherlock is NOT John's pressure point. Mary is.

If John left Mary, when does Sherlock mean as much to John as John does to Sherlock? Sounds like an unequal relationship-- rather one-sided. And I don't think Victor-- or anyone else would ever be able tpo take John's place. And honestly, they shouldn't even try. But John could never take Victor's place=-- or anyone else's place in Sherlock's life, either. Because these are different people. :-) So, Victor would have Victor's place in Sherlock's life, not John's.

I wonder: if Sherlock met Victor from my headcanon (that cultured, well-educated, intelligent, warm-hearted man with a deep understanding for Sherlock´s hobbies and past friendly connections to him), would John with his ratty jumpers, his fussiness, disinterest for Sherlock´s hobbies and skills and his proudly announced loyalty to Mary (Sherlock´s killer!) still seem so attractive to him?

Last edited by nakahara (August 1, 2015 9:39 pm)

Dorothy83 · August 1, 2015 9:46 pm

nakahara wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Dorothy83 wrote:
I think the reason a lot of people (including me) find it hard to imagine Sherlock giving himself over completely to someone other than John is that the kind of love Sherlock has shown for John is so unconditional and encompassing that it can't just be pushed aside or forgotten. John is his pressure point, the most important person for him, so it's going to be hard for him to move on completely. I think Sherlock would go as far as accepting attention and care, even love, from someone else - someone like Victor, whom he knows already and who he doesn't need to learn to trust and appreciate from scratch - but it will be unlikely for this person to take John's place.
The thing is-- Sherlock is NOT John's pressure point. Mary is.

If John left Mary, when does Sherlock mean as much to John as John does to Sherlock? Sounds like an unequal relationship-- rather one-sided. And I don't think Victor-- or anyone else would ever be able tpo take John's place. And honestly, they shouldn't even try. But John could never take Victor's place=-- or anyone else's place in Sherlock's life, either. Because these are different people. :-) So, Victor would have Victor's place in Sherlock's life, not John's.
I wonder: if Sherlock met Victor from my headcanon (that cultured, well-educated, intelligent, warm-hearted man with a deep understanding for Sherlock´s hobbies and past friendly connections to him), would John with his ratty jumpers, his fussiness, disinterest for Sherlock´s hobbies and skills and his proudly announced loyalty to Mary (Sherlock´s killer!) still seem so attractive to him?

I think he would. If you think about it, from the beginning at face value John has nothing to offer to Sherlock. He is ordinary, tells him off, disagrees with his methods, has to be prodded to do crazy stuff and criticises them. But that is at face value - in reality, John is exactly the other half of Sherlock, providing everything that Sherlock lacks and what Sherlock needs, and this is why I think Sherlock feels this instant connection and starts 'depending' on him (just like John starts depending on him) from the beginning. John is a doctor with a gun, he's exactly what Sherlock needs, although it doesn't seem so. I think your Victor, and 'good Victor' in general, would be very good for Sherlock, but alas isn't what Sherlock 'needs'...

nakahara · August 1, 2015 9:51 pm

Yes, but that loyal, brave and daring man Sherlock met in S1 evelved a bit and is now much more fussier, discontent and antagonistic to Sherlock... is he still the one Sherlock needs?

Vhanja · August 1, 2015 9:55 pm

nakahara wrote:
Yes, but that loyal, brave and daring man Sherlock met in S1 evelved a bit and is now much more fussier, discontent and antagonistic to Sherlock... is he still the one Sherlock needs?

You really dislike John that much?

nakahara · August 1, 2015 10:01 pm

Vhanja wrote:
nakahara wrote:
Yes, but that loyal, brave and daring man Sherlock met in S1 evelved a bit and is now much more fussier, discontent and antagonistic to Sherlock... is he still the one Sherlock needs?
You really dislike John that much?

I don´t dislike him at all. But I don´t like it how Moftiss entirelly robbed him of all his intellectual interests in this version of Sherlock. The original John was a skillful writer with a nice knowledge of literature, taste for classical music and other such brainy hobbies.... why replace such man with a person who wallows in his mediocrity and actually abhors Sherlock´s brainy activities?

Vhanja · August 1, 2015 10:04 pm

nakahara wrote:
I don´t dislike him at all. But I don´t like it how Moftiss entirelly robbed him of all his intellectual interests in this version of Sherlock. The original John was a skillful writer with a nice knowledge of literature, taste for classical music and other such brainy hobbies.... why replace such man with a person who wallows in his mediocrity and actually abhors Sherlock´s brainy activities?

So you really dislike BBC John?

nakahara · August 1, 2015 10:12 pm

Vhanja wrote:
nakahara wrote:
I don´t dislike him at all. But I don´t like it how Moftiss entirelly robbed him of all his intellectual interests in this version of Sherlock. The original John was a skillful writer with a nice knowledge of literature, taste for classical music and other such brainy hobbies.... why replace such man with a person who wallows in his mediocrity and actually abhors Sherlock´s brainy activities?

So you really dislike BBC John?

I don´t dislike John and I like this show very much, but I must admit, I feel a strange "anti-intellectual undercurrent" in it (and a portayal of John suffered from it a bit). Note how every character who is depicted as intelligent here is promptly portrayed as a psychopath, abnormal sociopath, misanthropist, criminal or something nasty... even Sherlock´s mother, a nice old lady, is insinuated to be anomalous when it gets out that she has an exceptional IQ. Upon hearing that Sherlock´s father is an idiot, Mary notes: "You are a normal one, aren´t you?" (which means, that the other members of the family are freaks....)

Vhanja · August 1, 2015 10:19 pm

I see what you mean, but I don't see it that way myself. Sherlock's intellect is regarded as a good thing. Something John acknowledges himself "You are the wisest man I've ever known...". From the very first episode it's never been Sherlock's intellect that has been portrayed as the issue, but his emotional shortcomings. ("Sherlock is a great man. And one day, if we're really lucky, he might be a good one").

As I see it, it's always been Sherlock's emotional development that has been the key factor. John has always shown admiration for his intellectual qualties, and been annoyed and grumpy about Sherlock's emotional immaturity.

Anyway, this is getting really off-topic. I just feel a bit sad when this thread seem to be a bit "Haha, John!" about showing Victor in his face.

And then I feel even sadder for myself for caring about this at all since we're talking about fictional characters.

RavenMorganLeigh · August 1, 2015 10:23 pm

Vhanja wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Honestly, I think fandom animosity towards Victor probably has to do with the hyper-romantic idea that "there can be only One True Love", and for most, it's John who fits the bill, with no possibility of anyone else for Sherlock, EVER.
That's how it is for some of us shippers. ;)

In real life, I don't believe in that idea. I agree that it's hyper-romantic and it's not founded in anything real. However, I don't ship Johnlock, or read Johnlock fics, for the realism. It's a fantasy, a daydream, a spice in everyday life. So in my headcanon, it's only the two of them.

That's a great point, about wanting fantasy from fic, not realism-- and knowing the difference between the two. I guess, in my case, ( and I do ship johnlock, but also Sherstrade, and Viclock) I like a bit of empowering realism with my fantasy. In my work, I see many women who have put their lives on hold--- for years-- over men that have made it clear that they have no intention of (a) ever leaving their wives, or ( b) returning the absolute devotion these women ( and sometimes Gay men) have for them.

Here's my other thing about the idea of a years long pining Sherlock, who only gets John after Mary has died or, John found out the baby's not his, or Mary leaves-- it makes Sherlock second choice, a default-- discarded, then taken up again because John can't be alone. When you factor in Mary's shooting Sherlock and very nearly killing him, and John forgiving that, staying with Mary, putting her first-- it's actually insulting.

That's why I think there's room for a happy ending story for Sherlock and Victor, or even Sherlock and Lestrade!😂

Just my opinion, and I could be on Crack! 😇

RavenMorganLeigh · August 1, 2015 10:27 pm

Vhanja wrote:
nakahara wrote:
Yes, but that loyal, brave and daring man Sherlock met in S1 evelved a bit and is now much more fussier, discontent and antagonistic to Sherlock... is he still the one Sherlock needs?
You really dislike John that much?

I don't think it's about disliking John-- but the John described above is the John we got in season 3. Mofftiss didn't make John especially sympathetic, this past season...

RavenMorganLeigh · August 1, 2015 10:28 pm

nakahara wrote:
Vhanja wrote:
nakahara wrote:
Yes, but that loyal, brave and daring man Sherlock met in S1 evelved a bit and is now much more fussier, discontent and antagonistic to Sherlock... is he still the one Sherlock needs?
You really dislike John that much?
I don´t dislike him at all. But I don´t like it how Moftiss entirelly robbed him of all his intellectual interests in this version of Sherlock. The original John was a skillful writer with a nice knowledge of literature, taste for classical music and other such brainy hobbies.... why replace such man with a person who wallows in his mediocrity and actually abhors Sherlock´s brainy activities?

THIS!!!!!!!!!

nakahara · August 1, 2015 10:28 pm

Hmmm, still it would be nice if at least one intelligent character appeared in the show, who would be depicted in a positive light... so why not fantasise about Victor being that person?

RavenMorganLeigh · August 1, 2015 10:31 pm

nakahara wrote:
Vhanja wrote:
nakahara wrote:
I don´t dislike him at all. But I don´t like it how Moftiss entirelly robbed him of all his intellectual interests in this version of Sherlock. The original John was a skillful writer with a nice knowledge of literature, taste for classical music and other such brainy hobbies.... why replace such man with a person who wallows in his mediocrity and actually abhors Sherlock´s brainy activities?

So you really dislike BBC John?
I don´t dislike John and I like this show very much, but I must admit, I feel a strange "anti-intellectual undercurrent" in it (and a portayal of John suffered from it a bit). Note how every character who is depicted as intelligent here is promptly portrayed as a psychopath, abnormal sociopath, misanthropist, criminal or something nasty... even Sherlock´s mother, a nice old lady, is insinuated to be anomalous when it gets out that she has an exceptional IQ. Upon hearing that Sherlock´s father is an idiot, Mary notes: "You are a normal one, aren´t you?" (which means, that the other members of the family are freaks....)

Thanks, Nakahara-- for stating so well, what I've felt for some time, but couldn't quite find the words to articulate clearly. You're absolutely correct.

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (August 1, 2015 10:32 pm)

RavenMorganLeigh · August 1, 2015 10:34 pm

nakahara wrote:
Hmmm, still it would be nice if at least one intelligent character appeared in the show, who would be depicted in a positive light... so why not fantasise about Victor being that person?

I'd love it!