To me it's clear that Sherlock has been through a huge process of humanization. He has developed a lot as a character, and the Sherlock we see in TLD is almost a complete different person than the one we saw in S1. 

It is mostly through John, however the process itself is of course done by Sherlock himself. No one can change another person, they have to change themselves. But you can act as an inspiration, motivation or a catalysator for those things. And that is what John has been for Sherlock in this process.

Or I might have misunderstood the thread, if it's meant to be a "John is a horrible person and we don't want him to have any role at all in Sherlock's development because we don't like him anymore"-thread.

Vhanja wrote:

Or I might have misunderstood the thread, if it's meant to be a "John is a horrible person and we don't want him to have any role at all in Sherlock's development because we don't like him anymore"-thread.

Since "humanisation" of Sherlock (through John) is a big theme of the show apparently, I wanted to know what scenes of acts of John towards Sherlock we saw in the show were regarded as "humanising acts" by fellow fans.

Can´t define that any better, sorry.
 

I think John's presence acts as a catalyst of sorts in unlocking Sherlock's emotions.  He has never been the sociopath he claims to be.  Narcissist, maybe, but not a sociopath.  He chose to suppress his opinions because caring or emotions were too painful to deal with or maybe in part because they interfered with his deductive abilities.
   I think this was also largely due to Mycroft coaching him to do so.  My guess is that Mycroft drilling into Sherlock that "caring is not an advantage" has something to do with childhood trauma--probably Euros--and am hoping it will be explained in TFP.
      So, does that count as John humanizing Sherlock? I guess I always went along with it as that is what we lead to believe was happening, but don't know.  John certainly helps him to present himself more appropriately to others with social cues.  But I think Sherlock has been very caring and self-sacrificing all along.  He just needed John to bring out those qualities.
   I think that both of them satisfy a need in each other and they love and fulfill and complete one another.  I don't mean romantically, but just as a deep, deep friendship in which they would do anything for each other and accept each other as is, flaws and imperfections both.  This is one of the reasons I love this show.  I find their relationship very special and unique, and both actors portray it so well.

I agree too.  I know this isn't the official story, but I actually think Sherlock is quite human right from the beginning.   And I think that comment at the end of TLD about everyone being human, even you (i.e. John) is quite telling.  

I think John helps him sometimes with social niceties, and also I think the fact that he cares so much for John helps him be more human.   But I don't think it's so much that John acts to make Sherlock human.  In fact in HLV, he's still assuring him that he's a psychopath or sociopath (I can't remember which), even though I don't think he really believes it.

besleybean wrote:

I think they humanise each other.

 
Yeah, I like the symmetry of that.
And people don't have to actively do something to bring out the best in each other. It's like with what John said about Mary - he wanted to become a better man because this is how she saw him. That was enough. No planned action needed.

besleybean wrote:

I think they humanise each other.

Can I just take an aside here and say that I just watched the video link you have there. I have to say that I think Mark Gatiss is adoooorable.

Last edited by ismiseceltic (January 11, 2017 9:18 pm)

I  think this is very much an aspect of both the original Strand stories and the show, but especially the show.

John is Sherlock's first real, honest friend (I don't count Trevor). Sherlock knew people before, but he never had a friend. This is because friendship is a mutual love. It requires two-sided dedication and appreciation. Before John, Sherlock made it his modus operandi to avoid/abjure all these things, hence no actual friends.


John was an honest good person who was too stubborn to let Sherlock carry on pretending to be a machine/dickwad. He forced Sherlock to confront his personal demons (drug abuse, cynicism, disregard for other humans, thrill-addiction, self-absoption) vis-a-vis. You can see this particularly in The Abominable Bride.
John constantly functions as Sherlock's conscience, questioning Sherlock's drug habits ("You will hold yourself to a higher standard.") and denial of emotion ("Why do you need to be alone?"). If in Sherlock's mind Moriarty represents Sherlock's weakness and fear, then John represents his humanity and morality. In the end of TAB, John kicks Moriarty over the water fall, showing that Sherly is ready to give up his former weakness and let himself be good.
S3E1 Sherlock even hears John's voice in his head when he goes on that case with Molly ("Show-off").

So, yeah I agree.

No, it's perfect and lovely Nicole.  Thank you.

Yes very interesting comments and question. 

I loved Sherlock from the first episode , I liked that he was different and so blunt. Like John I thought him a bit mad but utterly charming.
I think what John has done for Sherlock is more make Sherlock feel a part of humanity rather than a freaky outsider looking down on everyone and everything .Not only that but John also has made Sherlock want to be part of it all .Caring brings empathy and that might have been the only thing Sherlock lacked.Sherlock and John genuinely like and eventually love each other and maybe Sherlock realises despite the majority of humans being despicable idiots wasting his time - theres still hope , loyalty , love and all those good things out there to be found.