BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / The problem of Rosie Watson

**Posted by Vhanja** March 1, 2017 9:20 pm

I can't even remember if I've created a topic like this before, I apologize for my goldfish memory. If I have, please delete this.

I do love Moftiss' vision for this series. Showing Sherlock Holmes as a younger version of himself. Showing how he met John Watson, how he was more naive and more rude when he was younger. And how Sherlock and John journeyd to where they are now (ie where they are at the start of most Sherlock stories).

I get that, and I think it's awesome. However, if the point was to show Sherlock (and John's) mental and emotional journey up until the middle age where we usually met them, there is one thing that doesn't add up:

Rosie Watson

I get Irene Adler. I get Mary and John's story with her. But if the point was ending where most Sherlock stories begin, there is one HUGE difference - Rosie.

She doesn't play any important narrative at all. She's mostly just in the way of John's and Mary's adventures, she's handwaved away as being "with friends" - and i don't see how she contributes anything. All she ends up doing is being a huge difference from where Moffat tells us the story ends.

So I never understood her purpose in the narrative. Any ideas?

**Posted by nakahara** March 2, 2017 8:15 am

Vhanja wrote:
She doesn't play any important narrative at all. She's mostly just in the way of John's and Mary's adventures, she's handwaved away as being "with friends" - and i don't see how she contributes anything. All she ends up doing is being a huge difference from where Moffat tells us the story ends.

THIS!

I was astonished when Rosie was dispatched into some mysterious "friendland" whenever Sherlock and John and even Mary needed to go solving cases - and these mysterious "friends" were always available to care for Rosie for days or weeks maybe?

Why write a child into your story if you then do not know what to do with this character?

**Posted by SusiGo** March 2, 2017 8:49 am

Same here. You know my tendency to interpret things as MP and symbolic but if I assume that everything we have seen is real - the birth, the christening, the other scenes with Rosie - I am at a loss.

In my opinion the baby actually serves exactly one purpose - she is what makes John stay with Mary. Imagine Mary had not been pregnant and shot Sherlock. Can you think of any John Watson in the world who would have stayed married to that woman? So they made Mary pregnant and loyal John does not leave his child.

But there's the rub - now the writers were riddled with an unborn baby. What to do with her? Think of all our speculations - John is not the father, the pregnancy is fake, Mary and the child both die, only the child dies. They did nothing of the sort. They kept her and in the end gave her two fathers.

I wonder if this is really what Mofftiss planned. Or if they suddenly realised that they had a tiny plot device on their hands which they had to integrate into their story.

Last edited by SusiGo (March 2, 2017 8:49 am)

**Posted by athameg** March 2, 2017 11:24 am

Nakahara is right: "Why write a child into your story if you then do not know what to do with this character?" That was my thought from the first moment Mary's pregnancy was mentioned. I just did not see which significance a baby could have for the story.

But the argument of SusiGo is plausible: "In my opinion the baby actually serves exactly one purpose - she is what makes John stay with Mary." It makes sense, I think. But it also creates a huge problem. Afterwards the baby contributes nothing to the story, not before it is born and not after. And if the series will be continued it is basically a disturbing factor. That's why I was, stricty speaking, surprised that the baby was born at all. I actually had expected another course of events (as far as time in concerned), and I thought it possible that Mary would have died when she still was pregnant. That would be even canon, almost a bit. ACD does not tell us why Mary dies, but during the 19th century statistically the most common cause of death for younger women were miscarriages und problems with birth.

Perhaps they had simply inhibitions to let a pregnant woman die (or even to have killed her) or to let a baby die. Perhaps it was foreseeable that the audience would not accept such things. It could be, that, like Susi wrote, Mofitss did not foresee this and the difficulties it might cause: "They suddenly realised that they hat a tiny plot device on their hands which they had to integrate into their story."

**Posted by ewige** March 2, 2017 1:51 pm

I think it was a clever way to make Sherlock and John a family (or accelerate the process at least). How else would a drug addict and a PTSD Mr Trust Issues veteran come by a child? Not sure what the two of them would do with a kid, but it was basically the same problem with John and Mary anyway.
Also, isnt adorable parentlock reason enough to intoduce a new character?

Last edited by ewige (March 2, 2017 1:51 pm)

**Posted by nakahara** March 2, 2017 3:01 pm

ewige wrote:
Also, isnt adorable parentlock reason enough to intoduce a new character?

Are you sure this was Mofftiss motive when introducing Rosie?

**Posted by athameg** March 2, 2017 3:33 pm

Perhaps it's just me, but honestly, I can not imagine that parentlock was the reason. In my opinion it does not fit the style of the series.

**Posted by SusiGo** March 2, 2017 5:19 pm

Well, I am not against parentlock as such, not at all. But I really wonder why the writers should keep vehemently denying any sexual/romantic relationship between Sherlock and John while at the same time turning them into parents? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. As if they shied away from making a real job of it. Or they want to leave the door open for further developments ...

Last edited by SusiGo (March 2, 2017 5:20 pm)

**Posted by Vhanja** March 2, 2017 5:21 pm

I do agree with the thoughts here. I have actually thought that the existence of Rosie actually adds to the ambivalence of the ending. With Sherlock and John being at 221b with Rosie, it's even easier to interpret it as Parentlock/Johnlock than if the child was never there.

**Posted by besleybean** March 2, 2017 5:26 pm

I still say John and Rosie are living at their own home...
But anyway, whatever the scenario, I feel Rosie can only improve it...she is no problem for me.
But then, possibly its not something they'll ever have to think about.

**Posted by Liberty** March 2, 2017 6:04 pm

I could be way off the mark here, but I actually suspect the reason for Rosie was Sherlock's deduction at the end of TSOT (Mary's pregnancy, and the way that fits with the episode title). I honestly think that that was the starting point and they fitted the rest (of the baby "story") around that. Then Rosie was pushed to the background, and shown to not be a problem (i.e. Sherlock and John could carry on solving cases, etc., regardless). Much as I didn't want an episode about the difficulties of finding childcare at short notice, it did feel odd how little Rosie featured in TLD - a child who had just lost her mother.

I feel that the way it's left, Rosie isn't a big part of the story. It's safe to assume that John could continue to find emergency childcare, and he and Sherlock will be the heroes of legend. I do wonder about S5, though, if there ever is one. S4 was very strongly focused on family - all the clients in the series (not to mention the arch-villain!) are family - and I wonder if Moftiss would like to jump ahead a few years and feature an older Rosie heavily - not in a childcare sense, but as part of a case.

Last edited by Liberty (March 2, 2017 6:05 pm)

**Posted by besleybean** March 2, 2017 6:06 pm

That would be cool.

**Posted by ewige** March 2, 2017 6:59 pm

nakahara wrote:
ewige wrote:
Also, isnt adorable parentlock reason enough to intoduce a new character?

Are you sure this was Mofftiss motive when introducing Rosie?

Well, what was their motive when introducing Mary? She too brought Sherlock and John closer together (in a very dramatic way, just as a TV show is supposed to work). And I don't mean her TFP speech here but rather her shooting Sherlock and Sherlock shooting CAM for her. And also the whole wedding making Sherlock more aware of everything. And many other things too. I love Mary as a johnlock plot device :D

Last edited by ewige (March 2, 2017 7:01 pm)

**Posted by besleybean** March 2, 2017 7:00 pm

Mary was canonical...Rosie is a bit of a mystery on that one.

**Posted by ewige** March 2, 2017 7:04 pm

besleybean wrote:
Mary was canonical...Rosie is a bit of a mystery on that one.

She can be an original character the way she features in the show... being cleverer than Mycroft and Sherlock combined ;)

**Posted by besleybean** March 2, 2017 7:17 pm

Sounds good to me.

**Posted by tobeornot221b** March 3, 2017 5:18 am

For the time being, Rosie added to the laid on thick happy ending - a harmonious combination of not only Sherlock and John but of a "family" of all the main characters (including consulting ghost Mary). If Mofftiss wanted this to be the end of their story - well... But if there is a season 5, Rosie would be clearly in their way ("...never on a case!"). My guess is that next time we will sneak into 221B Mofftiss will have sent her off to boarding school. One episode, however, we will see her on Christmas holidays visiting her "family"("...lots of friends, (half) orphans's lot" kind of) and being a plot device in a case, for example reporting a mysterious incident happened at her school (some Canon stories are set at schools) and bringing Sherlock to investigate it.

Last edited by tobeornot221b (March 3, 2017 5:19 am)

**Posted by besleybean** March 3, 2017 6:50 am

So many possibilities...

**Posted by kgreen20** March 3, 2017 7:25 pm

Not until they first solve the problem of Dr. John Watson! That can be done in a standalone episode, if not part of another 3-episode season.

**Posted by besleybean** March 3, 2017 7:27 pm

How do you mean?
You mean him being a doctor?
He can still do that with childcare.