Thanks for posting the link.  It was an excellent analysis!  One thing it mentions that I've thought about since seeing the episode, it says John goes back for his gun before proceeding to Baker Street because of the
"Could be dangerous" line. I saw retrieving the gun as perhaps just a bit more than that.  John had just been "abducted" by a strange and mysterious man calling himself Sherlock's arch enemy. He'd also just been warned off Sherlock by Sally Donovan who thinks he's a freak and a psychopath and a potential future murderer.  Strange information indeed to process in such a short space of time.  John is intrigued enough to go back to Baker Street, but perhaps also apprehensive about what he's really getting into.  (You can see that moment of doubt when he realizes Sherlock has the Pink Lady's case). At this early point in their relationship he may have decided to stop for the gun in case he needed to protect himself from Sherlock Holmes.

John is the soul of the outfit; a kind, decent, honorable man and yet certainly not a wuss. Moriarty should have been scared of him.

I don't think it's just that.
I don't know if Sherlock was initially only looking for  flatmate, but he certainly quickly realises John is a good sidekick.
John's medical and military backgrounds are useful and he is also a decent bloke.

Yes and Sherlock has done it..

A good article and I agree.

I believe that Sherlock realizes at some point that he needs John.  They work out a "system" where if Sherlock tries to get info out of someone, he screws it up - using threats or some such, whereas, John can quietly talk to them, and get the info they need. 
Also, John is often the one to mention something that leads Sherlock to the correct conclusion. The cabby talks to the victims....the vegetarian restaraunt with a bill for meat.....

Good job, this analysis. :o) Thank you for sharing.

I quite like the phrase of the 'moral compass'. There are certain scenes - the cufflinks etc. - in which John reminds Sherlock to behave 'socially'.

In the ending of the first episode Mycroft's commenting: Interesting, that soldier fellow. Could be the making of my brother - or make him worse than ever...

Well, I count on the first. :o)

sj4iy wrote:

reality check wrote:

Good job, this analysis. :o) Thank you for sharing.

I quite like the phrase of the 'moral compass'. There are certain scenes - the cufflinks etc. - in which John reminds Sherlock to behave 'socially'.

In the ending of the first episode Mycroft's commenting: Interesting, that soldier fellow. Could be the making of my brother - or make him worse than ever...

Well, I count on the first. :o)

I wonder if Sherlock will fall into the latter without him?

Possibly.

(Oh, hopefully I'm able to put my thoughts into reasonable english :o)
I think, it's absolutely neccessary for the further development of a person/of a character, to have somebody upon your side, who queries you and your behaviour/decisions, whatever, because this person wants the best for you.
And with that, this one should bring the best out of you. Vice versa. No matter if it's friend or partner.

I think, in the Sherlock/John case this is beautifully shown in the series.

Last edited by reality check (June 17, 2013 8:01 pm)

Be wrote:

Mycroft's commenting: Interesting, that soldier fellow. Could be the making of my brother - or make him worse than ever...

 I am interested in this comment, too. It might be some kind of foreshadowing from Gatiss.
John on the one hand makes Sherlock vulnerable because he will become his pressure point and needs protection. On the other hand Sherlock gets support from John and insight into feelings. John can also be used as a decice to get informations about the drug  or as a bait for Moriarty (I am sorry for oversimplifying.)

What really bothered me is the meaning of John's blog in this context.

John is the making of Sherlock with the blog because Sherlock got more media attention and became famous. More interesting cases and more clients.
The blog is also something potentially dangerous. When asked whether Sherlock liked it he said. "No." We are supposed to think that Sherlock didn't want people to know that he doesn't know some basic stuff everybody else knows. I don't think this is wounded vanity because Sherlock doesn't care what people think. 
The case with the supernova occured in close and temporal connection with John's blog post about Sherlock's lacking knowledge as if somebody read the blog and immediately thought "Ha, ha, gotcha. Let's use this against Sherlock ." We know that Moriarty read the blog.

The next bit of personal information John told the world about Sherlock was about doubt. And doubt is a central theme of TRF, too.

 

Wow...  definitely....  plus all the comments about John being a compass plus holding his own... one of the big things I always loved about their version.   I agree what you said about the blog...  really interesting though, that while we could infer a keep-it-simple obvious understanding about Mycroft's words (which I love that he said in portrayal of the pair), with all the chat on here about the relationships between them, I was just musing that we don't quite know what Mycroft means by 'worse'. 

What does he consider by 'worse'... that John will, as you said, be both the cause and effect for Sherlock with a number of things, and be the reason Sherlock grows more vulnerable/human since Mycroft sees he's actually made a friend/partner in crime ('worse' in the eyes of a Holmes, or a 'the making of Sherlock' 'good' thing, considering the trouble he knows they've both had with it?  recall their conversation in the morgue, after all).  Or worse in that now Sherlock has a friend and a willing audience to boost him along, he might be even more obstinate/full of himself than ever, which annoys Mycroft.