I have thought since the beginning of the first series that the way in which Holmes and Watson in particular relate to each other would be one aspect on which the writers have to put a modern spin. Interaction was much more formal in the 1800s and remained so until the outbreak of WW1 in much of society. The writers of Sherlock have said that as there is little of Mycroft in the books they have had greater freedom with the character (paraphrasing here) and so with the Sherlock / Mycroft relationship. As for the Sherlock / John 'we are not a couple' running gag, it is a good one and one I have particularly enjoyed, I suspect because of the way Martin Freeman plays it. It is amusing that some fans have taken this and perhaps had slightly too much of a good time with it  . I am delighted that people have their own interpretations and I am certain that the writers enjoy 'wrong footing' fans of the show, they are certain to do so again. That's a large part of what hooks people in.

Personally, I think the whole "I'm not gay" shtick is so 1990's. Passé. As if I am watching re-runs of Seinfeld. M&G should have used it once and left it alone. Count me in as a girl who loves both the show and Benedict.

Call me cold-hearted but I don't really want the series to turn tooo lovey and gross!
It's just not really my thing...

Tantalus wrote:

. Now, I fully believe we can see (and already have to an extent) development of the characters' relationships within the context of who what those characters should be, and that's what helps us continue to love them more and more.

This is the whole premise of what we see on this show.
Moftiss have given us a younger version of Holmes & Watson. Like any young person, people learn about relationships, etc and evolve into a matured person at some stage (some later than others trust me)
These 2 are evolving into the Holmes & Watson we see in the canon (Moftiss have said that this is their aim, this many times)

So while people are jumping up & down saying "Sherlock loves her/him/it/them" etc they are failing to see that these interactions are not the forming & cementing of those feelings within him, they are lessons in life about love, loss and hurt. These are his lessons, he is learning HOW these things happen, HOW people react to them which WILL make him a more knowledgeable person on these matters without necessarily endowing him with these qualities.
The canon Holmes understands love, and loss and hurt etc. The BBC one when the series started (and even now in some areas) DOESN'T understand these things yet. But now that he is experiencing them, he is learning & understanding them.

Eventually we will find the end product IS an equal to the canon Holmes.

We are witnesses to a character's evolution. Much like making a cake really.

HOW TO BAKE THE PERFECT SHOW

When we bake a cake, we start with eggs, milk, flour and sugar. - Pilot show (Had the ingredients, just had to change the recipe a bit)
We mix it all together. - Study in Pink (Characters start to interact with each other)
We pour it into a cake tin. - Blind Banker. (well at least this would give a reason for this show )
We pop it into the oven.- Scandal (Ya gotta admit there was some hotness here)
We watch it rise. - HOUND (um ... the gas rose in the Hollow)
We test it.- Reichenbach ( geez, did we leave the door open too long, it started to fall I think)
Depending on the cake there are many things we can do to dress up this thing we are making. - Series 3,4, 5.....
Eventually it is ready. - Nooooooooooooo .... it will never end!

What happened to The Great Game? Or is that where you go off and do the washing up?

kazza474 wrote:

So while people are jumping up & down saying "Sherlock loves her/him/it/them" etc they are failing to see that these interactions are not the forming & cementing of those feelings within him, they are lessons in life about love, loss and hurt. These are his lessons, he is learning HOW these things happen, HOW people react to them which WILL make him a more knowledgeable person on these matters without necessarily endowing him with these qualities.

As a proud flag waving charter member of the "Sherlock loves_____" contingent, I am going to take some issue with this premise.  I refuse to believe that Sherlock is simply this robotic data collecting machine who is just now absorbing emotional data but only in a clinical sense. Are we to assume Sherlock has lived his first 25-30 years in a bubble? Or dropped in from another planet? Did he not have ample access to witness the "hows" of love and friendship before now at university, at work, at various past opportunities for friendship and love that he spurned? Of course he did.

So what has changed, why is he now exhibiting signs of humanity, of caring, of *shudder* romantic interest when he had never done so before? Why are M&G showing these gradual yet growing cracks in Sherlock's emotional armor?  When you rule out the impossible you are left with the probable: Until now he has never met a Watson or an Irene in his life. Until now he has successfully repressed these feelings because he felt they would only hinder him.

My feeling is that Watson's need for action and danger allowed him access that no one before had ever been granted in Sherlock's life. Watson's ability to tune out the total dick in Sherlock has allowed Watson to hang in there with Sherlock and let Sherlock experience and share the real qualities of loyalty and friendship. Similarly, I suspect no woman before Irene was ever the perfect combination of cleverness and loveliness and challenge required to attract his attention.

Like everyone else here I do not wish this show to become a syrupy romantic lovefest. I am fine with having the emotional issues take small bites at the periphery of the show. If Sherlock ever became a romantic wimp we'd all hate him But in taking this show from the Victorian Era to the Tech Era I think the writers are quite rightfully being realistic about a human being's ability to weather and fight off emotional needs. To me the clues left in these first six episodes could not be more clear about that.

tobeornot221b wrote:

Very well said, SP, thanks!

Just two remarks on this subject.
I remember an interview with Benedict where he was asked about the Sherlock-and-emotion business, and he replied: "Sherlock is a very emotional man." And in the Live-Chat with Moffat and Gatiss two or three weeks ago the question arose: "Is there any kind of love between Sherlock and John?", and as far I remember correctly Moffat said "They love each other very much." In what way he left open to everyone's interpretation because "I'm just the writer."

Indeed, tobeornot221b! In fact I am sure Benedict is part of our "Sherlock loves" club. Do you think we could entice him to take us out for a drink?

You're still doing the washing up during The Great Game then? I wish my lot at home would!

Sentimental Pulse wrote:

Indeed, tobeornot221b! In fact I am sure Benedict is part of our "Sherlock loves" club. Do you think we could entice him to take us out for a drink?

There's actually no point in resisting us, is there?

JaneCo wrote:

I have thought since the beginning of the first series that the way in which Holmes and Watson in particular relate to each other would be one aspect on which the writers have to put a modern spin. Interaction was much more formal in the 1800s and remained so until the outbreak of WW1 in much of society.

I totally agree, great post IMO. Truly modernizing Sherlock Holmes means not only introducing mobile phones and DNA-samples, but also embracing how society has changed. Of course, the most obvious is the whole "everybody thinks John & Sherlock are a couple"-thing, but sibling relationships too are very different nowadays than in ACD's times. Therefore, I don't really see the fact that the brothers have a more complex relationship than in the books any more as a departure from canon than nicotine patches vs. pipe smoking.

For personal reasons, I have spent quite some time researching the psychology of sibling rivalry, and how being the oldest/youngest/middle sibling will inevitable affect your life. I feel that Sherlock's behaviour towards Mycroft and vice versa is very realistically portrayed.
Furthermore, I think Benedict's take on Sherlock is a beautiful display of typical youngest sibling behaviour:
- He expects people to take care of themselves AND of him, without seeing this as weakness (John, Mrs. Hudson, Mycroft)
- He does not rely on violence or physical strength to solve his problems, nor does he try to appear (physically) threatening
- As a natural habit, he will try to charm people into helping him or to get his way, rather than intimidating them (Molly, playing the injured priest, even with Moriarty to a degree)
- He doesn't see any reason to comply with social standards, especially not when they are represented by his older brother

I could go into Mycroft's behaviour too, but I don't want to bore you with my amateur psychology!