fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2503 ]

[ SECRET POST #2503 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2503 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 105 secrets from Secret Submission Post #358.
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

10. http://i.imgur.com/psMoM79.jpg

Everyone needs a Watson, and this is one of the reasons. It's friendship, not subservience.

Exactly. Why wouldn't I continue to cheer and be impressed when my friend made his 75th slam dunk? Sure, I've seen it before, but it's still awesome and I would still want to be supportive.

You and me both. Much as I fail to see the reasons behind the sheer admiration people display for Sherlock (I like it a lot, too, I just think that it's way overrated), I was happy that they preserved John's/Watson's amazement at Holmes's abilities. The way Sherlock is surprised upon getting praised is one of the best things about their relationship ever.

It warms my heart to spot an occasional epithet referring to Holmes's talents in the canon, tbh. Whenever Watson says something about how singular Holmes is and how his genius is unsurpassed, I go "aww" :)

It is, I imagine, supposed to be a part of the reason why the stories work. What would've been the point if Watson did not react to the reveals the way he does? The readers would've felt less amazement, too, or none at all; and certainly for Watson there would be less appeal in following Holmes around. He does not, after all, go on the cases out of some misapprehended sense of charity - it is for his own enjoyment as well as for helping Holmes out.

I think one of the reasons is that Holmes constantly explains/projects/postulates stuff in a such a way that it's like getting an inner glimpse of someone's brain working.

You're seeing more than just a guy talking about shit. You are seeing the brilliance of the human mind in play, and how beautifully a single person can link together the universe in such a way that it seems like you've been given a glimpse through a keyhole.

It's like watching someone be masterful at what they do. They could be sharpening a knife, or doing math theorems on a chalkboard, or doing ballet-- if they are an expert at it, you could be amazed at them doing it every single time because you never knew anybody could be that good.

I think a lot of that is lost through the medium of the works; printed work is sometimes hard to muddle through and translate someone else's brilliance.

Really? I always thought that this was the opposite way around: something that got lost in translation to visual mediums. The stories themselves allow Watson to use his own narrative voice to articulate what he found so fascinating and impressive about Holmes's deductions. TV and movies need to shuffle things around and figure out how to convey these things through action without being explicit, since they don't have narration.

Personally, I found the visual mediums only failed in that they actually haven't found a person who's awesome in the way that Holmes is awesome (i.e. being able to present something so that it sounds like you're being given a key to the world rather than some guy sound like a ponce).

The way I've always seen Holmes, is he's that guy who was able to silently write and solve an entire math theory on a chalkboard in a classroom, and then have everyone stand up and applause when he was done.

I think it's just hard for people to be able to convey that kind of expertise without making it seem like he's a douche. And I mean, that's where the textual medium gets it right, in that I totally know what he's talking about, and I think every one else does too-- it's just hard to get someone to accurately represent it on TV or movies, because as far as I know, they haven't gotten a deductive genius to play Holmes.

While I think it's true that nobody managed to portray Holmes the way you described him (and I largely agree with this interpretation), I've seen a few versions who didn't look/sound like dicks. The Soviet Holmes, for one, is very agreeable in this regard, and so are Richardson!Holmes and Howard!Holmes. (oh, and Ronald Howard might just come very close to your awesome maths-loving version).

Thanks very much for the Holmes reccs! I actually haven't seen Richardson or Howard, so now I'm intrigued to see how they portrayed him. Right now I'm wading through Johnny Lee Miller, who is a great actor (omg THOSE EYES) and a good AU!Sherlock Holmes, but definitely not "Sherlock Holmes".

But you're also right that it does come down to interpretation-- some people read him with a stronger dash of douchebaggery than I do.

Howard!Holmes is rather nice. He really has fun during investigations or just playing pranks on Watson who's a sensible one and also the one carrying a revolver. Livanov!Holmes just such a great friend, he's calm and a bit escentric. I haven't seen Richardson!Holmes, you reminded me 😃

It probably goes both ways. Visual media do not have the narrative opportunities, the original text cannot show things the way visual media do.

But then I don't really think that any of them suffer from these shortcomings. I've never seen a screen adaptation that would measure to the literary original, but I assume that's because it wasn't made, not because the genre is somehow inherently worse. [Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that the original is a work of a single author, while the adaptations have dozens, sometimes hundreds of people working at once].

What was that quote? Ah yes: "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius." Watson was talking about a police inspector, not about himself, but it applies to himself just as much. He isn't amazed with Holmes because he's too dumb to understand how Holmes does it, it's because he does understand how Holmes does it, and knows from personal experience how amazing Holmes's gift is, no matter how Holmes may dismiss the uniqueness of his own talents.

Also, Watson usually gets a huge kick out of Holmes's deductions and mysterious ways -- he finds it immensely entertaining when Holmes totally bamboozles him and then explains it. And Holmes frequently does it for Watson's sake (I have a big beef with people who accuse Holmes of jerking Watson around just to bolster his own ego, when 80% of his tricks and show-off-y moments are done in order to entertain Watson or to put his clients at ease).

That scene in A Study in Scarlet when Holmes explains his deduction about the retired marine to Watson, and Watson thinks it's completely awesome and looks at his kooky roommate with newfound respect, and Holmes just blushes like crazy because he's so pleased at Watson's praise? I have never read such a good friendship-formation moment in any other story :)

"Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius."

This. This exactly. The alternative of Watson being impressed is Watson taking Holmes for granted or not understanding his skill. Because, not matter what else you can say about Holmes and what aspects of his character people quibble about in adaptations and canon, one thing you can't deny is that he is a genius at deduction. And genius isn't something you should become blasé about.

IIRC, he doesn't blush? But I agree with the rest of the comment; it makes me smile.

Even if it's not canon (I might've forgotten if it were), I may adopt it as a headcanon. It's adorable.

ayrt

Ah, yes, after the marine, he's a bit more subdued/cautious about accepting Watson's praise:

"...all facts which led me to believe that he had been a sergeant.”

“Wonderful!” I ejaculated.

“Commonplace,” said Holmes, though I thought from his expression that he was pleased at my evident surprise and admiration.

But the blushing part comes a few hours later in that same day, when they're coming back home from Lauritson Gardens after Holmes shows up Lestrade and Gregson with his big deduction of what Drebber's murderer looked like, and then explains it to Watson:

"You know a conjurer gets no credit when once he has explained his trick; and if I show you too much of my method of working, you will come to the conclusion that I am a very ordinary individual after all.”

“I shall never do that,” I answered; “you have brought detection as near an exact science as it ever will be brought in this world.”

My companion flushed up with pleasure at my words, and the earnest way in which I uttered them. I had already observed that he was as sensitive to flattery on the score of his art as any girl could be of her beauty.

Awww yeah. Thanks for reminding me of this one. Now excuse me while I go and flail a little.

Seconding the flailing. Swear to god, original-flavour Holmes was such a massive dork at times.

Awww.

D'awww...

Now how come I never get to see that in any of the adaptations?

Because the original stories > everything else and always will ;) Or alternatively, it just hasn't happened yet!

That being said...I think the Bert Coules radio dramatization of A Study in Scarlet might have this scene in it? I only managed to listen to part of it, and that scene wasn't the part I heard, but judging from what I did hear, it seems a good bet that they would have adapted that scene. Not quite the same as seeing it, but still. Anyone who has heard it wanna elaborate?

(no subject)

tweedisgood - 2013-11-10 09:03 (UTC) - Expand

BBC Radio version report

tweedisgood - 2013-11-10 09:44 (UTC) - Expand

"Wonderful!" I ejaculated.

(I refuse to apologize. You know you enjoyed it!)

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2013-11-10 16:30 (UTC) - Expand

Everybody wants to feel smarter than Watson. And he lets them. Watson is wonderful. I love him as a character! :D He's not about ego.

There's a great bit at the end of the BBC Radio/Bert Coules series, in LAST (best adaptation EVER, IMO) where Holmes calls Watson out on how he portrays himself as the "slightly slower friend" and Watson says it's part of his deliberate ploy as a writer: "I'm there for contrast" and plays the "East Wind" speech as if he were playing the part of "bit slow on the uptake" Watson to illustrate. It's magic.

Ehh...Tbh, I always roll my eyes a bit when adaptations try to "fix" Watson's supposed lack of intelligence in the originals. It a) implies that being really intelligent is the Most Important thing for a partner and friend to be and b) implies the reader is too dumb to read between the lines and notice the five bajillion times Watson has pulled narrative tricks to either gloss over his own contributions or suspicions, or to use foreshadowing and the law of conservation of detail to draw the reader's attention to clues about the cases they would never have picked up if they had been tagging along with Holmes irl instead of reading Watson's story, so that they feel smarter. It's not terriby hard to notice.

However, I haven't heard that particular episode (I have heard OF it, and yeah no sorry - canon hints were bad enough and that's not the kind of angst I either care to subject myself to or have any respect for, no matter how objectively "good" it is) so I'll reserve judgement. Plus Coules is after all usually great at replacing narration and filling in blanks in the action with new dialogue.

All the adaptations with "not stupid" Watson have as far as I can see little to do with the originals (where Watson isn't any dimmer than the above-average middle class Joe) and everything to do with Nigel Bruce making him (on director's orders) a blithering idiot in the Universal films. IOW they are restoring canon Watson, not criticising him.

I didn't get any sense of angst from that version of LAST, I must say. Poignant, yes (how could it not be?) but beautifully underplayed and true. I did disagree with his version of retired Holmes and Watson as not meeting at all for ten years, but it was portrayed as Watson acting respectfully, not as "woe is me" in any way.

Edited 2013-11-10 12:52 (UTC)