OT: The writers are contradicting themselves once in every half an hour, so what?
(Back to my cave)

I believe that he was an "army doctor" as this is what we are told in the show and there's no good logical reason to believe they would be purposefully misdirecting us by telling us one thing when they mean another, and if he was trained at Bart's that's definitely the right place.

HOWEVER, I also believe that some of the military aspects of the show are a bit iffy, in the same way the science aspects are a bit iffy. I think it's just a case of them getting it wrong and us eagle eyed fans noticing rather than anything else.

Exactly. In case of doubt I don't go with what BBC (or anybody else involved with the show) claim "behind the scenes" (in commentaries, on web sites), but with what I see in the show and know from independet sources. I admit that I simply assume that Wellingtongoose a) knows what she (?) is talking about and b) is telling the truth as she knows it, but my knowledge of Camp Bastion comes from the book "Medic" (John Nichol & Tony Rennel), which I consider reliable. And it tells me that an army surgeon would probably rather have nightmares about cut-off body parts than about front-line fighting.

I see in the show a guy who has nightmares about infantry action out in the field (and not behind hesco walls in a camp). A guy who is an exceptionally good shot - something that's not probable or necessary for a doctor - and who has no qualms about using that skill to actually murder somebody. I see Dr. John Watson in London very clearly working as a GP and Wellingtongoose tells me that there is no way doctor who specialized as a surgeon can work as a GP without re-training for years. (John takes the job with Sarah in the second episode of the first season).

And then Major Sholto shows up, a man who gets death threats for leading troops into battle and getting them killed - clearly he's not a medical officer. But he was John's commander in Afghanistan.

These are the facts of the case and they simply don't fit with John Watson being an army surgeon in Camp Bastion.

I'll amend my previous statement, however: I had forgotten Wellingtongoose's theory that John might have joined the army twice - once as a doctor (or to become a doctor) and then, after his time was up, a second time to become an infantry officer ("As one doctor once said to me - you can only do this job for so long before you just need to go out and shoot something." - http://wellingtongoose.tumblr.com/post/30681523063/semantics2)

The line "A doctor and a soldier but not an army doctor" has stuck in my memory from Kizzia's series (http://archiveofourown.org/series/160646). Btw, Kizzia has also written a wonderful meta on John's gun, the SIG Sauer P226 (http://archiveofourown.org/works/1058689) - NOT a Browning as Moriarty thinks and I've read in several fanfics.

The point I'm trying to make - and I'll stick to it: When Captain John Watson was in Afghanistan, he was there as an infantry captain, NOT as a doctor.

Last edited by Kittyhawk (June 13, 2015 1:39 pm)

Which he would have been if we go with him joining the army twice - first as a doctor, then as a soldier.

The way I see it there are two possibilities: Either we tweak things as suggested by Wellingtongoose - the result is not 100 % (there's still John's "I had bad days" when Sherlock shouts, half-strangled "You were a doctor"), but at least makes for a reasonably coherent in-universe explanation. And it offers lots of exciting story possibilities...

Or we accept that Moftiss don't know the first thing about either medical careers or the army, and that they can't be bothered to find out but prefer to write nonsense, which indicates for me a stunning disrespect for doctors, armed forces and the audience. I mean, Dr. Watson's career is not a minor point like the difference between alpaca and Icelandic wool or what clostridium botulinum looks like. It's the background of one of the show's main characters - doesn't it deserve a bit of care?

How would you explain the above-listed inconsistencies? For example, how and when would Major Sholto have commanded John?

Last edited by Kittyhawk (June 13, 2015 4:37 pm)

I agree. And as much fun as analysing may be, in the end it may spoil the fun if you just keep looking for inconsistencies and are not willing to suspend your disbelief. It is not a documentary but fiction, they are storytellers. And I am fine with that. 
 

Strangely enough, I have always found the show to be made with very much love and care. Proof of which are - apart from its popularity with the audience - the many awards, also in the technical categories, it has won. Therefore I cannot share your views on lack of care on the side of the creators.. 

The issue I have with the army doctor AND soldier story is that it's quite an unusual route - I think I'd like it made more explicit in the show if that's what we're meant to think.   It does seem to be the only route that fits well, though. 

I remember from interviews that (paraphrasing) Benedict likes to have a backstory, but Steven Moffat doesn't.    So I do think it's possible that "army doctor" was enough for him, and he didn't really think through the details, except when they're relevant to John as he's writing him.  And I think there are some "mistakes" which he happily admits in the commentaries.

The war flashbacks always feel a bit like footage, rather than as if John was actually there (or perhaps as if he was filming it.  I don't recognise him in the shots, although I could be missing him.  If he's actually one of the soldiers then that would confirm his role - unless he's fantasising?).  Maybe that's deliberate because they're dreams (they wake John up), but it has a different feel to say, Sherlock's mind palace scene in HLV which is also a sort of dream, but you feel that he's actually there and you're there with him.   Or even the half-asleep sequence with Irene and the hiker.  I don't have a particular point, but just saying that's what it feels like to me.   (Also, what happens in the sequence we're shown isn't clear: it's not quite as awful as you would expect.  It reminds me of one of those popular console war games, rather than showing the horrors of war.  Then later we hear that John misses the fighting rather than finding it a traumatic memory.  It's unlikely, but I wonder if it's possible that he was an army doctor who did see some deaths and injuries but who secretly fantasised about being a front line fighter?).

Anyway, I think it's fun to discuss all the details! 

He doesn't actually wake up crying, though.   He starts crying afterwards (perhaps when he realises it's a dream, and he's in his lonely room).  And I think it's confirmed when he talks to Sherlock and Mycroft, though.  Sherlock asks him if he saw injuries and violent deaths, then asks if he wants to see some more.  John's answer is "God, yes!".  Violent deaths aren't something he's trying to escape.  Maybe the gunshot bothers him, but then he chooses to carry a gun.

Then there's Mycroft, who's pretty perceptive, with that little speech about walking with Sherlock Holmes being like the battlefield (if John was traumatised by the battlefield, why would he be so drawn towards Sherlock?).  "You're not haunted by the war, Dr Watson ... you miss it". 

Not that you have to believe it of course, but it fits together quite well for me, and maybe gives another view on John's backstory.   Although if I go by your interpretation and assume that John is traumatised by the war, I wonder if it's possible that it was the other way round - that he enlisted straight from school, became a captain under Sholto, left, went to medical school then re-enlisted and worked as a GP thinking he'd escape the horrors, but was sent to Afghanistan and was closer to the action than he'd hoped, and ended up getting injured?  Although that probably doesn't fit with the CV, and perhaps not the timng with Sholto, and then it might be odd that he was using Captain as a title rather than whatever he'd be as a GP (Major?).

I suppose I need to elaborate on my above statement: I object to the writing, as in: plot logic, characters' behaviour, reality-compliance (assuming the show is supposed to play on planet earth and not in a parallel universe). I am very much impressed by the actors, camera work, special effects, costumes - I completely understand all these awards! I can even somehow understand the one for best writing for ASIB - the episode is so much fun that it took me ages to realize that the plot doesn't make all that much sense!

What I cannot understand is that Wellingtongoose presented a perfectly logical way (okay, it's unusual - but John is an unusual person, isn't he?) to make a character's background reality-compliant - and you don't jump at the opportunity! (Of course it's not made explicit in the show - Mofftiss don't care what we think, they obviously don't care about John's background and whether what we see in the show fits what soldiers and doctors actually do in Afghanistan.)

As for the PTSD: I kow very little of it, but the big problem seems to be the transition from war back to normal, civilian life. It's calles post traumatic stress syndrome, after all. I don't think the problems can be staved off indefinitely by simply not making the transition and staying in war, but it might work for a while. Or not - is shooting the cabbie really normal civilian behaviour? (Actually, no, even owning the gun is not "normal" in GB)

Btw, the footage used for John's nightmare was filmed by Ben Anderson for the BBC in Afghanistan (i. e., it's the real thing - hopefully, at least it's being presented as the real thing) - and you can find it on YouTube by searching for Ben Anderson Afghanistan. I have the info from Kizzia's comment on Johnny Get Your Gun.

No, the clenching isn't done when he's in danger, but when he's under stress. Which goes a bit against Mycroft's statement that his hand is steady under stress.

I just find the PTSD/adreanlinjunkie parts of his personality to clash a bit, and I have a bit of trouble figuring out what goes where.