fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2475 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2475 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Supernatural, Watchmen]

__________________________________________________

04.

[a case of exploding mangoes (2008 novel)]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Brothers in Arms]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Agents of SHIELD ]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Transformers: IDW Generation One]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Sarah Michelle Gellar]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Young Guns 2]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 057 secrets from Secret Submission Post #354.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I keep reading fans (mostly Sherlock fans, FWIW) insisting that Holmes always treated Watson like crap in the books. This seems like a rather subjective complaint, because one fan's abuse is another fan's humanizing flaws, but I'm feeling a little cautious about it because I'm not exactly frothing to read anything about a smart person feeling he has license to treat less-smart people like crap just because he's smart.

If the question is, does Holmes treat Watson like crap - the answer is yes and no, depending on your perspective.

Holmes does tend to effortlessly upstage Watson - but Watson also tends to deliberately fade into the background, as the "author" of the stories. He's quite self-effacing, himself, and is always willing to describe his errors as much as he is Holmes' successes. So that may colour your perception.

Also, on the "treating like crap" side of things, Holmes does tend to use Watson as he would any other tool - tricking him (twice) into thinking he was dead/dying, for instance, to in turn trick the bad guys. Watson compares himself once to Holmes' violin or pipe - in other words, he's a habit that Holmes has gotten accustomed to, is all.

But also - well, Watson's always raring to go with Holmes. So there's that to consider. They definitely enjoy each other's company, and Holmes does make allowances for Watson that few others seem to enjoy.

My personal view has always been that Watson's very aware of the fact that Holmes prizes rationality above emotion - so he understands why it is that Holmes can often come off as cold or unfeeling. It's not actually true, but it may certainly appear so.

And then there's this bit, in The Three Garridebs, when Watson gets shot at:

There was a crash as Holmes’s pistol came down on the man’s head. I had a vision of him sprawling upon the floor with blood running down his face while Holmes rummaged him for weapons. Then my friend’s wiry arms were round me, and he was leading me to a chair.

“You’re not hurt, Watson? For God’s sake, say that you are not hurt!”

It was worth a wound–it was worth many wounds–to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain. All my years of humble but single-minded service culminated in that moment of revelation.

(And then, when the wound proves minor, Holmes turns around and tells the baddie it's a good thing for him - because Holmes would have killed him if Watson had died.)

I think that pretty much sums up their general attitude towards each other: Watson's long-suffering, but he's very aware of Holmes' affection for him - even if he only gets very rare glimpses of that affection.

... Of course, like you said, this is all subjective. I do look askance at the bits where Holmes gets manipulative, but overall, I feel more like they have a decent relationship.

Yeah, you're right, it is really subjective. However, I will say this -- in canon, yes, Holmes treats Watson rather poorly on several occasions, and is incredibly cruel to him a few times. However, his motivation and attitude when he does this is almost never "I'm better than you therefore I am allowed to treat you like crap". I can think of only two times where he's belittled Watson in such a fashion, and only a handful of times when he's been deliberately vicious or mean-spirited towards anyone. Almost all his mistreatment is of either the thoughtless kind or the "for the greater good" kind.

And in between his moments of meanness, he's usually very polite, affable, and even affectionate towards Watson, frequently thanking him for little favors and constantly using terms of endearment (IRL this kind of alternating is a kinda really awful thing, btw, but it makes for vastly more enjoyable reading).

So I guess it depends on what kind of stuff bothers you more when it comes to kinda jerky characters.

He does really treat Watson horribly sometimes, but only once in a while, for brief moments, not constantly or even frequently. His default attitude towards Watson is very pleasant, albeit imperious. Take that as you will.

Eh, depends on how you look at it. Holmes could be brusque and was capable of steamrolling other people who got in the way if he was busy, but I wouldn't say it's deliberate. It's clear that he trusts Watson, puts stock in Watson's judgement and of course, Watson's expertise in medicine as well as his people skills. I wouldn't say it's a case where Holmes feels free to treat people like dirt just because he's smarter than they are.

[ SECRET POST #2475 ]

Re: Sherlock Holmes canon vs fanon

Re: Sherlock Holmes canon vs fanon

Re: Sherlock Holmes canon vs fanon

Re: Sherlock Holmes canon vs fanon

Re: Sherlock Holmes canon vs fanon