Perhaps because the characterization of Watson is less thorough in canon than the characterization of Holmes, there have been many different Watsons:

 - in canon, Watson is very much a follower, EXCEPT where medical matters are concerned: he takes stands about Holmes taking better care of his own health - and he (Watson) will drop everything to be with Holmes, especially when Holmes is depressed or ill. This Watson also declares that it was worth getting shot to see Holmes' concern.

- sometimes he's a bumbler or an idiot (mostly in the Basil Rathbone films)

- many pastiches have him very conventional while Holmes is progressive (sometimes Holmes will rant about how women commit crimes because they're given nothing productive to do)

- in the Jeremy Brett series, Edward Hardwicke is Watson takes care of Holmes like a doctor, or dare I say, a spouse, but he can be very assertive, trying his own deductions and calling Holmes out on some of his stupider moves (like Holmes experiment with the Devil's Foot chemical). That Watson showed a little hurt over the Reichenbach Falls deception, but mostly joy that Holmes was back. And he never married!

- Fan fics often have Holmes kind of swooning over Watson - for his bravery, but also his decency and gallantness - so we get an idealized view.

- I wonder if BBC's John is too much like Sherlock. He doesn't seem to do very well with relationships either, and while he may be more aware of the human consequences of their cases, he is also in it for the excitement, not for justice. He can very angry and even violent (including toward his friends and allies), and he doesn't strike me as particularly caring in a "soft" way.

And then someone else wrote that he deals with emotions by repressing them...that's like Sherlock.

I have never seen an adaptation where Holmes and Watson fight as much, or as aggressively, as they do in BBC-Sherlock. In canon, the most violent acts each one does are in the name of protecting each other. Holmes definitely has his personality issues, and Watson may not be perfect, but there is usually more...softness...in how they treat each other.

When Sherlock says in TSoT that John made him a better person...that implies John has good qualities, especially with regard to showing friendship, that rub off on Sherlock. I'm not sure I see it. And then, in HLV I had problems with John's behavior toward Sherlock. 

Last edited by SherlocklivesinOH (February 15, 2014 3:17 am)

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

Perhaps because the characterization of Watson is less thorough in canon than the characterization of Holmes, there have been many different Watsons:

 - in canon, Watson is very much a follower, EXCEPT where medical matters are concerned: he takes stands about Holmes taking better care of his own health - and he (Watson) will drop everything to be with Holmes, especially when Holmes is depressed or ill. This Watson also declares that it was worth getting shot to see Holmes' concern.

- sometimes he's a bumbler or an idiot (mostly in the Basil Rathbone films)

- many pastiches have him very conventional while Holmes is progressive (sometimes Holmes will rant about how women commit crimes because they're given nothing productive to do)

- in the Jeremy Brett series, Edward Hardwicke is Watson takes care of Holmes like a doctor, or dare I say, a spouse, but he can be very assertive, trying his own deductions and calling Holmes out on some of his stupider moves (like Holmes experiment with the Devil's Foot chemical). That Watson showed a little hurt over the Reichenbach Falls deception, but mostly joy that Holmes was back. And he never married!

- Fan fics often have Holmes kind of swooning over Watson - for his bravery, but also his decency and gallantness - so we get an idealized view.

- I wonder if BBC's John is too much like Sherlock. He doesn't seem to do very well with relationships either, and while he may be more aware of the human consequences of their cases, he is also in it for the excitement, not for justice. He can very angry and even violent (including toward his friends and allies), and he doesn't strike me as particularly caring in a "soft" way.

And then someone else wrote that he deals with emotions by repressing them...that's like Sherlock.

I have never seen an adaptation where Holmes and Watson fight as much, or as aggressively, as they do in BBC-Sherlock. In canon, the most violent acts each one does are in the name of protecting each other. Holmes definitely has his personality issues, and Watson may not be perfect, but there is usually more...softness...in how they treat each other.

When Sherlock says in TSoT that John made him a better person...that implies John has good qualities, especially with regard to showing friendship, that rub off on Sherlock. I'm not sure I see it. And then, in HLV I had problems with John's behavior toward Sherlock. 

This is about the most balanced comment on BBC's John that's I've seen yet. :-)

ancientsgate wrote:

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

besleybean wrote:

I think Sherlock's: there are plenty of people dying in this hospital Doctor,is particularly pertinent.

I love that line!

And also the, "will caring about them help save them?" and John has to admit, "no" and Sherlock replies "then I'll continue not to make that mistake." It sounds cold and heartless but it's so true - caring about them won't help save them!

But most people wouldn't make a conscious decision about that. They would just care, because that's what they do. Sherlock implies here that he can turn his caring on and off.

But most people don't have to focus so intensley on solving a problem *in order to save them*. Other folks who might have to adopt this sort of mode of compartmentalization might be, for intsance, a surgeon, trauma nurses, cops, sometimes one has to be detached to be effective. And as a soldier, and army doctor, John really should get that. :-)

Willow wrote:

....There are people more suited to specialisations whose primary contact is with patients who are unconscious at the time; just as there are people who should be locked in the lab and never allowed anywhere near a patient, conscious or otherwise.

Oh, definitely. MDs specialize in radiology or forensics or research or even anesthesiology are probably more suited to the idea of not dealing with conscoius patients and their families.  Like my daughter in law the funeral director and licensed embalmer once told me, "Well, I originally wanted to be a nurse, but I didn't want to have to hurt people."  So she does a very technical, people-oriented job in a hugely male-dominated field, but at least she's not causing anyone any pain, and none of her clients can give her any backtalk, either.  *smile*