“As an institution I was like the violin, the shag tobacco, the old black pipe, the index books, and others perhaps less excusable. When it was a case of active work and a comrade was needed upon whose nerve he could place some reliance, my role was obvious. But apart from this I had uses. I was a whetstone for his mind. I stimulated him.”
—
John Watson about Sherlock Holmes, from The Adventure of the Creeping Man (via mathildalocks)
Regarding the canon debate going on today: the direct quote shows us what buddies are for each other, air to their lungs, pleasure to their mind, other things perhaps less excusable….violin, pipe, tobacco, anything and everything that makes Sherlock Holmes is in John Watson. The drunk rizzla game on the show is a deep deep projection of these types of passages, I am you and you are me. Everything I can tell about you also in a way defines me despite the fact that we are completely different in our social personas.
Above is how ACD wrote this, openly. He made John say he was the institution, the comrade, the nourishment for Sherlock’s soul and the stimulant for his brain basically everything and anything he needed in this life. Here you are fretting over the possibility of this being translated into physical intimacy and of course at the same time fretting over us; highly intelligent, well-read, creative women and some men, enjoying that possibility. Dude, they don’t even need it at this point, ACD wrote one of the best romances ever. The guy was reading Pride and Prejudice while writing The Final Problem; the same guy who you think was a technical, medical expert. (Evidence here)
also it’s dirty
(via arthurconandoyle)
“He stroked me and I sang; I rested on his lips and he inhaled me. He thumbed through me as needed, I got into his veins and made him high. When he needed a strong and fearless partner I knew what to do, but even when I didn’t, he needed me. He sharpened his mind on me. I stimulated him.”
Just sayin’.
(via ivyblossom)
As I said on this general subject long ago now, the story of how we became human is fundamentally a story about love, no matter how you choose to define it. To talk about what Watson means to Holmes, you simply must talk about his humanity, the things that make him who he is as a character, that humanize him (and Holmes needs it)– without Watson to immortalize him yet also ground him in humane particulars, Holmes is just a man who has an obscure hobby. As John le Carre wrote, Watson is extraordinary and more importantly, he’s *necessary* for Holmes’ appeal, for “when he is alone, he is only half the fellow he becomes the moment faithful Watson takes back the tale”.
Is not that I’m not vulnerable to this, or I don’t feel the warmth and passionate intensity with which Conan Doyle sometimes portrayed them. That Romantic, even Gothic ideal of soulmates who complete one another– that’s the stuff I love most about the discourse about pure love that we saw in English literature around the beginning of the 19th century. This is absolutely an aspect of the same conceptual thread we see explored in Bronte’s ‘Wuthering Heights’ or Oscar Wilde’s tragic fairy tales, such as the one about the nightingale. Quite striking to see these ideals mentioned in any account of masculine Victorian rationalism, though I’ll note that this is also Watson’s POV. He romanticizes what he can. It’s said in sweeping and typically sentimental Victorian prose, but he’s essentially saying he thinks of his role in Holmes’ life as that of a indispensable tool, a trusted object of daily use. This is not only where we get that ‘I’m you’ in TSoT but Sherlock’s proclamation that John is his ‘conductor of light’ in THOB, as well. No matter how you slice of, Watson is necessary for Holmes to exist, and he knew it. In Conan Doyle’s stories, the presence of one essentially created the need for the other. That was, broadly speaking, their function. Sherlock thinks John wants him to be ‘Sherlock Holmes’, the detective in the funny hat, and so he is: that remains the dynamic.
I think it’s definitely true that they don’t need it; Holmes and Watson are tied on such a deep and abstract level (of pure narrative compulsion) that romance is beside the point. Their story is already epically Romantic, if not romantic. Like Achilles and Patroclus equal the Trojan War, much more than Paris and Helen herself, the hero’s story is driven entirely by the shadow of the other. And our Patroclus knows his place in history– in this case, he wrote the story. I just think it took more than a hundred years to make their narrative only humanly romantic: just about Sherlock and John. Two people whose grand ideas about each other often serve to blind them and keep them apart; two people who’re wrong about why the other needs them, after all.
(via mild-lunacy)
Great addition by @mild-lunacy and the humanizing arc of epic romance! They can’t function without each other. After all #sherlockholmeslives #johnwatsonlives
(via mathildalocks)
Bringing this ACD baby back for broken hearts.
The chemistry between Holmes and Watson is canon and BBC Sherlock cannot say a damn word about this.























