Your quote: "John is more the type that gets cranky during stress (although you could say that about Sherlock as well sometimes. I see a bit of similarities between "drama queen" and "I don't have friends". Both lines are said when they are frustrated, stressed and scared). John has a bit of a temper, it's like it's always there just under the surface and it spills out during stress."

Sherlock says "I don't have friends" during the fireplace scene when he is drugged, drinking (which he usually does not), and crying (which does not happen too often either). All these should be signs of alarm to John, but he calls him Spock and does not really see what is happening, i.e. that Sherlock is having a major meltdown. He doubts the one thing he thinks makes him acceptable to others - his brilliant mind. 

I agree. John has major issues dealing with people's emotions*especially* other guys'. He is super uptight and the embodiment of the 'stiff upper lip' attitude - I mean, he asks Mary to stop him if he tries to hug Sherlock!! I always wondered why did he say that? Because hugging him would have been a display of 'weakness' and him losing his stoicism in front of emotions and feelings (which he did - he also cried!)

To me, in the scene in Hounds it was very clear that he didn't know how to deal with the situation.

SusiGo wrote:

Yes, and it fits perfectly with his words in the Tube carriage: "I find it difficult, this sort of stuff."

It does fit perfectly. (On an OT remark: That line was put in by Moftiss because Martin had said those words himself while filming the gravestone speech in TRF. Martin found it hard to do scenes like that).

I might have misunderstood it, I thought it was Martin saying it due to the scene. I don't recall saying John saying "I genuinely find this very difficult" at the gravestone.

SusiGo wrote:

Your quote: "John is more the type that gets cranky during stress (although you could say that about Sherlock as well sometimes. I see a bit of similarities between "drama queen" and "I don't have friends". Both lines are said when they are frustrated, stressed and scared). John has a bit of a temper, it's like it's always there just under the surface and it spills out during stress."

Sherlock says "I don't have friends" during the fireplace scene when he is drugged, drinking (which he usually does not), and crying (which does not happen too often either). All these should be signs of alarm to John, but he calls him Spock and does not really see what is happening, i.e. that Sherlock is having a major meltdown. He doubts the one thing he thinks makes him acceptable to others - his brilliant mind. 

I'll be honest here-- I thought John was rather callous towards Sherlock in that scene, and I thought the exposure of John to the same drug was sort of a "let's see how you like it" payback move on Sherlock's part. Not good. But understandable. 

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (September 15, 2015 5:33 pm)

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Vhanja wrote:

Then we view it a bit differently. I think Sherlock has been quite horrible towards John several times. Humiliating him in public, drugging him and scaring him senseless as an experiment, having John believe he was going to die just to force a forgiveness from him... being called "drama queen" can't really live up to that standard of cruelty in my book.

There is actually only one line that I feel was a bit cruel from John to Sherlock. And that was his "We are not naming our daughter after you" in the tarmac scene. I just felt it was completely unneccesary to underline that when they think they will never meet again.

So to me, they both have their share of rudeness to each other. I don't feel comfortable having only one of them taking the flak for their bickering and sometimes over-the-line remarks or actions, because they've both done it several times. 

Are you saying that you feel that this conversation-- meaning discussion of John's shortcomings-- really should only be held if we point out correspondingly bad behavior of Sherlock's at the same time? Meaning- John did so and so-- but of course, what Sherlock did was worse?  Sort of like the tally sheet has to be equal on both sides? 

The thing is, I don't think anyone's bashing John-- it's certainly not the intent-- but , whenever John's character is discussed and we come to some of his less savory moments, the discussion is usually shut down by people going on about how much worse Sherlock is, and so-- no discussion.

Or is John off limits? 

I am very respectfully asking, because I'm not sure how to frame things for this discussion, and not sure if it's a discussion that can actually happen. People's feelings seem to get very hurt, whenever anyone says something less than flattering about John, and that's not anyone's intent. So, I'm asking --not just you, Vhanja, but everyone-- is it possible to discuss the "faults" of the characters, without getting people upset? 


 

I see your point, and I am the first to admit that I quickly get defensive of John. It happens because in my very personal and subjective view, I feel the criticism is very unbalanced. Sherlock's behaviour is usually understood ("Yeah, but he did it because of this and that, so I understand why he did it"), whileas John isn't always given the same courtesy, I feel.

I also feel that some of the criticism towards him is very harsh and unforgiving. It's not that he has some issues (that I can readily agree with), it's that he doesn't even deserve to be in Sherlock's company, that he is a selfish and horrible person etc. It feels so un-nuanced and harsh, with no understanding or discussion on why he is like he is (as is done with Sherlock, thus most of his behaviour is easily forgiven).

And why should the first thing that come to mind when discussing John's evolvment as a character be his negative sides? What about also including his positive sides? Make it a nuanced debate of his entire character, not just his flaws?

Last edited by Vhanja (September 15, 2015 6:24 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Vhanja wrote:

Then we view it a bit differently. I think Sherlock has been quite horrible towards John several times. Humiliating him in public, drugging him and scaring him senseless as an experiment, having John believe he was going to die just to force a forgiveness from him... being called "drama queen" can't really live up to that standard of cruelty in my book.

There is actually only one line that I feel was a bit cruel from John to Sherlock. And that was his "We are not naming our daughter after you" in the tarmac scene. I just felt it was completely unneccesary to underline that when they think they will never meet again.

So to me, they both have their share of rudeness to each other. I don't feel comfortable having only one of them taking the flak for their bickering and sometimes over-the-line remarks or actions, because they've both done it several times. 

Are you saying that you feel that this conversation-- meaning discussion of John's shortcomings-- really should only be held if we point out correspondingly bad behavior of Sherlock's at the same time? Meaning- John did so and so-- but of course, what Sherlock did was worse?  Sort of like the tally sheet has to be equal on both sides? 

The thing is, I don't think anyone's bashing John-- it's certainly not the intent-- but , whenever John's character is discussed and we come to some of his less savory moments, the discussion is usually shut down by people going on about how much worse Sherlock is, and so-- no discussion.

Or is John off limits? 

I am very respectfully asking, because I'm not sure how to frame things for this discussion, and not sure if it's a discussion that can actually happen. People's feelings seem to get very hurt, whenever anyone says something less than flattering about John, and that's not anyone's intent. So, I'm asking --not just you, Vhanja, but everyone-- is it possible to discuss the "faults" of the characters, without getting people upset? 


 

I see your point, and I am the first to admit that I quickly get defensive of John. It happens because in my very personal and subjective view, I feel the criticism is very unbalanced. Sherlock's behaviour is usually understood ("Yeah, but he did it because of this and that, so I understand why he did it"), whileas John isn't always given the same courtesy, I feel.

I also feel that some of the criticism towards is very harsh and unforgiving. It's not that he has some issues (that I can readily agree with), it's that he doesn't even deserve to be in Sherlock's company, that he is a selfish and horrible person etc. It feels so un-nuanced and harsh, with no understanding or discussion on why he is like he is (as is done with Sherlock, thus most of his behaviour is easily forgiven).
 

I think that you and I feel the same way about "our" characters. I tend to "stand up" for Sherlock, because I see him as most often getting the brunt of criticism in the fandom-- and that's for the last few years: particularly in Fanfic/Fandom-- Sherlock has traditionally been "the Not Good One " and John, "The Saint". I can't tell you how many fics are tagged this way. So, that's why I'd like to see a more balanced discussion--regarding *both* characters. Just my personal view, but I don't think *any* of the characters should be exempt from discussion, flattering or not. I think we need to remember, that when it comes to a character we like, we have a tendency to view anything said about them they same way we would a very good friend-- and get all upset that someone is being mean to them! :-) The thing is-- these are fictional charcters. 

Maybe we can agree to disagree on some things? :-)

Vhanja wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

I think that you and I feel the same way about "our" characters. I tend to "stand up" for Sherlock, because I see him as most often getting the brunt of criticism in the fandom-- and that's for the last few years: particularly in Fanfic/Fandom-- Sherlock has traditionally been "the Not Good One " and John, "The Saint". I can't tell you how many fics are tagged this way. So, that's why I'd like to see a more balanced discussion--regarding *both* characters. Just my personal view, but I don't think *any* of the characters should be exempt from discussion, flattering or not. I think we need to remember, that when it comes to a character we like, we have a tendency to view anything said about them they same way we would a very good friend-- and get all upset that someone is being mean to them! :-) The thing is-- these are fictional charcters. 

Maybe we can agree to disagree on some things? :-)

I didn't join the fandom until late last year, so I haven't been involved in any of the discussions when they were the most active. I don't really have a favorite per say. I love Sherlock and John BECAUSE they are flawed. I love that they have weaknesses and are not perfect. Square-jawed knights in shining armour bores me to death.

So in general I don't need to defend any of them, I don't even need to understand them always. I can't defend everything Sherlock has done, neither do I want to. It's part of what makes him so awesomely interesting. 

I certainly do not in any way view Sherlock as horrible and John as a saint. Sherlock has done some horrible things, yes, but he is not a horrible person. And John being a saint is laughable. They are both flawed. But there is a reason to why they are how they are. I just wish that both of them would be getting equal amounts of understanding for why they are as they are.

I think they do-- it's just that we have different threads to discuss them separately. 

Vhanja wrote:

So if that means that John's flaws are to be discussed with the same sense of understanding of his character, I highly welcome it.

AWESOME! 

Liberty wrote:

Interesting points.  I felt that through S2, Sherlock sometimes didn't treat John very well, whereas in S3, it was the other way round.   I tend to give Sherlock more of a pass because of the way he is, whereas John is supposed to be more in touch with human nature, and has less excuse.  Also, although Sherlock has plenty of faults (he's arrogant, for one, a characteristic that I like about him, but it isn't exactly a good characteristic), I don't think he aims to hurt John.  And also, Sherlock is the hero, out saving the world, while John tags along (most of the time) - Sherlock gets more of a chance to prove his worthiness.

But it's not a competition, and maybe I should give John a pass too, because the way he's written is quite complex - he's not really the average man in the street at all, and has genuine difficulty dealing with some things. 

Interesting, I felt that Sherlock treated John worse in S1. Or to modify that - by S2, John knew better how to deal with it. That is why I have mentioned before that in S1 John felt like the "underdog", whereas that was Sherlock in S3.

It's like they've come full circle. They have to move out in a different direction from here, I am very interested to see where they are taking this.