#holmes feels

[mild-lunacy]

I've always been fascinated by the way people relate to fiction. But because of that very fascination, and the depth of my interest in understanding stories.... It's more challenging to simply accept pure projection or wish-fulfillment in readings or even fanfics, even though I realize that's part of the point and purpose of fiction. Like, I realize that. I just... can't help being unhappy about it. I can't help being sad that some (many!) people don't realize or don't care that Sherlock's whole world revolves around John, and I mean *even if* it's just platonic. Same for not seeing the way Adam and Ronan fit better than anyone, romantically-- same with any story, with the exception of ones where the relationship isn't that well-written. I'm not too defensive about Harry/Ginny, though to be honest I'm still a little defensive, haha.

Anyway, this is what happens when I see Sherlock AUs where Sherlock's straight, in love with a woman who saves him from a life of endless dullness and *no mention* of John's role is even necessary. If nothing else, it's like a story about King Arthur where Merlin isn't important, say, or a summary of a story about Wendy Darling where no mention is made of Peter Pan. I realize people do that and much, much weirder things in fandom, but it's just so *wrong* on this bone-deep level. To me, the greatest stories have a bone-deep logic, a true nature that's always present no matter how they're transformed or what details change with the retelling... or it's not recognizable and not *really* anything to do with the characters.

I have this silly sort of half-fantasy where... everyone can understand the heart of a story, and it's always preserved. Everyone is naturally IC, because the truth is just that obvious. That's my pure wish-fulfillment, I mean. But I actually think it'd be a sad world-- it would inhibit creativity, stifle the imagination. I get that... but I struggle with it. It's hard for me to hold on to my lofty convictions in fandom, because by definition, this has to do with stories I particularly care about in the first place. I can't just... not care, by definition. Especially when everywhere I turn, there's completely irrational hate and wank over Authorial Intent, or aggressive, almost smug displays of heteronormativity in fics, where literally everyone is interpreted as straight and paired off. (Alternatively, everyone is literally queer and/or a POC-- and canon obviously doesn't matter at *all* in either case). Stories are used as reflections of ourselves and the world we live in, and that's part of their purpose... but I care about the *story* part. I mean, I care about the story in and of itself, even though I'm aware that the story only *exists* in the liminal space between the audience and the creator(s). In a very real sense, there is no absolute 'text', and logically, there's no such thing as 'heart' in a story... but that's all I care about. It's maddening. I definitely still do think there *is* a heart, as I've long seen it. It's just... often very difficult to pin down. In Sherlock Holmes stories, I think the heart is definitely related to the relationship between Holmes and Watson, for example, which is surely why there's a Watson in at least 95% of the adaptations. Ergo, any fic or adaptation that ignores or sidelines John Watson does not have much to do with Sherlock Holmes.

It's not straightforward, of course. I remember watching that Ian McKellen adaptation, 'Mr Holmes', which didn't have a Watson-- but one eventually realized that the character is still deeply informed and influenced by his relationship with Watson. I could sort of feel Watson through his absence, through Holmes's loneliness, the delicacy of his memories. It's certainly canon that Holmes was alone at the end of his life, so this film probably improves on the situation. So I don't really need the same approach or focus, by any means... but it's painful when I feel that the fic and/or adaptation clearly doesn't care about the core of the characters, and it's all about projection and wish-fulfillment. Especially when it's aggressively heteronormative wish-fulfillment.

In the end, that must be how many people felt about TFP-- as if Mofftiss wrote the equivalent of an aggressively het Sherlock AU where John is an afterthought. That's a great sense of betrayal: that loss of 'heart'. It's also an interesting test case for myself, 'cause of course I didn't feel that was the case when I watched it. In fact, I was glad to see the old John back! Clearly, it's next to impossible to be fully rational about such things. I mean, I certainly enjoyed the episode and I didn't think it destroyed the heart of Sherlock and John for *me*-- but at the same time, I can see how it did so for others. This sort of double vision is why I like thinking about the vagaries of reader response in the first place. It greatly enriches one's relationship with any text. I suppose I just... don't feel pure projection adds much to my understanding, personally, so I just get irritated. To put it another way, sometimes there's a valid critique or analysis to be made (as with TFP, certainly), and sometimes a reading is just a heteronormative fantasy that directly contradicts every relevant aspect of canon just to see two attractive people of the opposite sex kiss. And to be fair, sometimes that level of shallowness and projection is behind a queer reading, too; I'm not much happier with Sherlock ignoring John for say, Victor Trevor than Molly. And I'm willing to admit that both fair and rational critique and irrational projection have a place in fandom, and I'll even admit you have to take one to get to keep the other... but it's frustrating.

I simply can't help feeling that any story I love is most beautiful when told honestly, even when that means it wouldn't be appreciated or understood by all the people who would have otherwise twisted it to fit their needs.

[mild-lunacy]

The Author of the Frog and Toad Children’s Books Was Gay. Does That Change How We Read His Characters?

In the enlightened year of 2016, we tend to think of the closet as being a uniformly negative space, a shadowy den of oppression and denial from whic ...

Frog and Toad’s companionship is a portrait of gay love that’s reserved and slightly melancholy, but fiercely protective and devoted. It’s a style you often find in descriptions of gay relationships as they existed before liberation made visibility a community value, and one you can still sometimes observe in older same-sex couples of the "long-time companion" bent. That Lobel was able to transpose his experience of the closet and gay desire into charming animal characters, to gesture toward this adult dynamic in the simple vocabulary of a children’s book, only underlines his already apparent skill as a writer and illustrator.

I was really touched by this idea of the ‘long-time companion’ portrayal, not least because it creates an obvious parallel to Holmes and Watson (and many real life couples in the past, of course). Not surprisingly, if you look at the article’s comments, there’s the usual range of responses, heavily weighted towards ‘why mess with a children’s book’ and ‘but pure male friendship!’-- not to mention ‘it’s not gay till they’re fucking’. All arguments being oh so familiar from Harry Potter fandom as well as Sherlock. It really seems to be a broad cis/straight heteronormative response issue, rather than specific to fandom.  Surprisingly, there was a fandom-type response stand in, from a self-described cis/straight woman who loved the books as a child and subconsciously understood they’re portraying same-sex love. 

It’s ironic to me ‘cause I really love ‘pure’ friendship stories and would probably not ship Frog and Toad left to my own devices, though I’m sympathetic to the reading (similar to my feelings about Kirk and Spock or Holmes and Watson). But honestly, this highlighted two things: one, my feelings change when the author is actually gay. Talking about these things in the same way when one of the creators of the piece is queer seems particularly tone-deaf and crushingly heteronormative, if not actually homophobic (another link to BBC Sherlock, natch). Two, the entire feeling-- the need to protect friendship, childhood or straightness by denying potential homosexuality-- is fundamentally suspect. There’s no 100% ethical defense of it, really. It’s natural (I’ve felt it, I’ve done it), but at best it’s not actively problematic. It’s definitely not supportive of the multiplicity of readers and their need for acceptance and representation.

Note, I don’t mean that I feel I need to transform my reading of, say, Conan Doyle’s stories on this abstract ethical basis. Your reading is always your reading. For the people who read Frog and Toad (or Holmes and Watson) platonically, not much can be (or should be) done to actively dissuade them. It’s not really a question of proof. It’s more a question of questioning readers’ protectiveness of their status quo, which is generally heteronormative (though not always). Should we aim to protect our readings, or our beloved texts, whether they’re intentionally subtextually queer or not? Ideally, the answer is no.

I absolutely think the urge to ‘protect’ texts, especially stuff that’s culturally ingrained and ‘assimilated’ or meant to be read in childhood (a delicate time) is natural. But being natural doesn’t make it a great idea.  I say that specifically about ambiguous situations and texts. I think ambiguity is a good thing, and it is really protected by not being weighted towards heteronormativity. There’s a certain compensation at work here-- but there’s no reason to insist on one’s reading, given it’s essentially subtext. Let the story be free. On the other hand... if and when you have a text that’s textually queer, all bets are off. It’s a fundamentally different exercise, a different conversation. People are sure to still say that the text is ‘ruining’ itself or jumping the shark, or disrespecting its own history. That’s when the strongest social pushback against homophobia is clearly warranted-- but then I always said so.

I guess the change for me is really in that I think people should be encouraged, strongly encouraged to consider queer readings of ambiguous stories as well, and yes I mean including children. If I were to teach Frog and Toad, I would absolutely talk about the gay subtext of these characters’ relationship, and mention the gay history of the author. If I were to teach Conan Doyle, I would absolutely do the same (that is, teach the facts we have about the author, explore the interpretations people have made).  I think to a certain extent, people-- readers in general-- should learn to see slash. In other words, this isn’t just about fandom; rather, I think any educated person-- a person who reads, including a child-- needs to learn how to think for themselves, which includes seeing past heteronormativity. In fact, it should ideally start in childhood, when people’s minds are most flexible. I feel like a lot of those commenter’s minds couldn’t be changed by now. Naturally, though, there is always hope.

[spirallinginrabbitholes]

Frail Acceptance.

Have some Holmes brothers angst just because..

Dying..?

Sherlock had known Mycroft had been unwell but..?

He swallows, breath caught in his throat as he regards the his elder brother. There is no trace of mirth - not that such a thing should ever be considered a laughing matter - but as the seconds since those words passed drag on, Sherlock finds himself desperately wishing they were a joke.

His lip is trembling now and something cold is creeping over his skin, penetrating and painful.

An odd choking sound comes from his throat and he’s forcing a smile, even as moisture fills his eyes. “Come on, it’s just a chest infection you -” He hates how is voice cracks at that moment and there is blur of movement as fingers flick away the wetness gathering in the creases of his eyes.

Mycroft Holmes is not dying.

My brother is not dying! He can’t!

Wordlessly, he rises to his feet, away from the bed and over to the window. Look at that. Look at the world, still turning...

So why do I feel like I’ve fallen off? 

His fingers are drumming on the sill, in rhythm with his heart that is beating a mile a minute; panic is fast approaching and his jaw aches, there’s a wedge in his throat and -

He’s suddenly a little boy again. Sliding down the wall and hugging his knees to chest. The effort it takes not to weep is cramping his stomach and instead his eyes and nose streams, shoulders shaking with silent sobs.

The reality that Mycroft will not be there forever is crushing. Sherlock cannot imagine life without him in it - despite their distance through the years. He is in every memory. Sat on the bed reading him a bedtime story, carrying him on his back through the garden, walking him to school, holding him as his body quaked through withdrawals ... Oh it hurts, hurts so much. Don’t leave me, don’t leave me…

Time passes, each minute just as agonising as the last but eventually Sherlock finds some composure. He shakily returns to the bed, laying down next to his brother and resting his head on his shoulder. He links their fingers and spends the next few moments simply watching Mycroft’s chest rise and fall. He realises how much weight has been lost, how frail and small his brother suddenly feels. He squeezes his brothers fingers gently.

“I’m looking after you from now on.” He whispers. “It’s my turn.”

[mild-lunacy]

The Martian, Sherlock Holmes, and why we love competence porn

We're rooting for the smartest, most rational characters in the room.

Clever characters who can weasel their way out of any situation go back to the earliest days of western literature, when ancient Greek hero Ulysses, star of the Odyssey, outsmarted the cyclops and figured out how to listen to the sirens' song without killing himself. In the east, the character Sun Wukong (AKA the Monkey King) plays a similar role, using his trickster cunning to keep the bad guys down. Indeed, most competence porn heroes have an element of the Monkey King's trickster ways—they may use logic to defeat death, but they'll tell a few jokes and pull a few beards along the way.

Probably the most important figure in competence porn today is Sherlock Holmes, a character who was born during at the height of scientific industrialism in the nineteenth century. Like the heroes who came in his wake, Sherlock is a master of deduction, social engineering, and getting out of traps by using whatever random items happen to be at hand. He's also a smartass. It's tough to be the biggest nerd in the room, especially when you have answers to everything. So Sherlock develops a rather dry, sardonic sense of humor to cope—and to mess with his dimmer colleagues.

With Sherlock's shadow looming large over the genre, it's no wonder that many of competence porn's greatest creations are also detectives or problem-solvers of various kinds. In the latter half of the twentieth century, we had a slew of them in Doctor Who, MacGyver, The Equalizer, Prime Suspect, Aliens and of course every James Bond movie ever made. And let's not forget the 2010s masterpieceBurn Notice, which always had those incredibly cheesy-yet-satisfying voiceovers where Michael Westen explains how to use an old Commodore 64 to hack the traffic system, or a piece of gum to shut down a nuclear power plant. (OK I made those up, but you know what I mean.)

The point is, these are heroes who treat even action-packed fights as intellectual puzzles. And generally, they never miss a chance to deliver a good quip.

I may end up talking about Sherlock’s love life and the nature of the narrative in BBC Sherlock all the time, but this is actually what draws me to Sherlock Holmes as a character, haha. His squishy center is like the frosting, but the competence kink thing was the cake itself for Big Damn Nerd ten year-old me. I still like competent heroes the most, and I daresay so does Moffat, apparently (since Doctor Who is another variant according to this article). No matter the evidence to the contrary, I still believe Sherlock Holmes can solve anything. The badass competent hero thing combined with the squishy center is my kryptonite. In this too he’s not alone (see: Spock in particular), but BBC Sherlock is so addictive to me because it’s about the innate limitations and conflicts of the character as well as the huge transformative potential.

Essentially, to be a ‘competence porn’ star, you have to be a static character in some sense, because (as many of the entries in the genre, like the Hunger Games books, show), if they have too much growth, they start accumulating trauma. And once the character accumulates enough trauma (like Sherlock in Series 3), it becomes difficult for the audience to really believe they’re superhuman. Once that bubble pops, the allure fades for many of the people who were drawn in by the archetype in the first place (as we see with many Sherlock fans leaving).

What I really think is unique about BBC Sherlock, like I said, is that it explores this tension-- and in my opinion, the existence of a character arc that serves to increase competence through a trial by fire, eventually integrating emotion into his facade of reason, makes this incarnation absolutely one of a kind. The character is not static, and so has the freedom to grow and reflect various aspects-- both the inner conflict and the untapped potential-- of the archetype. I always wanted to read stories like that about Spock, like the second to fourth Star Trek movie arc except more in-depth-- because I always knew they were possible. I never accepted the idea that this heroic type was limited by their very strength. 

I think the most interesting part is when the character who can know everything and do anything faces his limits, and then learns to transcend them. You can think of this character as the perfect human machine: the apotheosis of technophilic humanity. And learning-- learning is the biggest thing that humans excel at, the thing that allows our most impressive leaps. Of course-- of course I want to see competence porn, now with less character stasis and more learning. This is Sherlock Holmes going back to his roots as Ulysses: the man who was never content to be the smartest one in the room, but was always the most unexpected. Ulysses learned short-term, through a more meandering Hero’s Journey arc; Sherlock improves on this ancient model, and learns long-term tricks. This, then, is how you build a better human.

Other characters in recent series hover right on the edge of becoming competence porn stars, but they lack something essential. You might think House would be a great example of competence porn, with its hat tips to Sherlock and hyper-rational hero. But Gregory House, unlike Sherlock or Mark Watney, isn't a generalist. He's an expert in one thing, which is solving weird medical cases. Whenever he steps outside that narrow area of competence, he's a giant mess. He has no social skills, no "let's build a robot dog out of pushpins" savvy, and he basically can barely tie his own shoes. Same goes for Temperance Brennan in Bones. She's a master at solving forensics cases, but she can barely talk to other people and would definitely not be able to figure out how to jump out of an airplane without a parachute and land safely.

Remember, competence porn stars have to be social engineers. They can't rely on other people to translate the geek talk into human talk for them, or they aren't fully competent. Heroic and smart, yes. Competent, no.

I really think this is an interesting contrast, since they say this about House in comparison to Sherlock, who is fully competent (being a generalist, unlike House). I mean, clearly Sherlock in Series 1-2 is not a generalist. Unlike House, Sherlock has an arc, and by TAB, we certainly see that he’s progressed in his understanding of others, and even his social engineering mojo (although he wasn’t the best with Janine, he did pretty well, all things considered). Sherlock starts out ‘heroic and smart’, no social skills to speak off. Contrary to most competent!Sherlock fans, this article suggests that Series 1 Sherlock was not very competent. I agree (and so do Mofftiss, I think). Being really good at one thing isn’t the awe-inspiring ability to engineer your way out of any situation that us huge geeks (often?) worship. For true ‘competence porn’ levels of awesome, you need more than deduction. You need social smarts, you need some sort of self-awareness or ability to understand oneself enough overcome one’s own basketcase status, and you need to think on your feet in any situation. Sherlock can’t just rely on John, either, I agree.

We’ll get there. Just wait, okay. This painful separation has a purpose, clearly.

They may be good at social engineering, but most heroes of competence porn have to sacrifice their social lives on the altar of reason in order to get the job done. The Doctor in Doctor Who will never find a companion like those he lost on Gallifrey. I don't care how many Sarah Janes, Roses, Captain Jacks, and River Songs you throw at the guy, his two hearts will always pretty much be broken. He seeks out companions to ease his galactic loneliness, but they never quite ease his melancholy. Similarly, James Bond and Sherlock Holmes seem doomed to be loveless, though Bond has M and Sherlock has Watson.

There's a good reason why, too. Just take a look at the Jennings' lives on The Americans. They couldn't possibly be more competent, but they are often hobbled by their growing emotional intimacy with each other—not to mention worry over their two children, who have no idea their parents are Soviet spies. Emotional connections can be a powerful motivator for heroes, but not for competence porn stars, who have to keep their heads.

It’s amazing how close Sherlock runs to both constructing and deconstructing the archetype, isn’t it? I’m amazed. It’s true, of course, that a classic hero of this sort really is doomed to loneliness. As I just wrote yesterday, I definitely think many people who ship him naturally overlook the benefits of just, you know, not including romance for Sherlock Holmes (and it is really so easy). It’s not really a tragedy, even. I don’t think Sherlock is kidding himself about the ‘grit on the lens’ stuff, and I also think he hasn’t even overcome it by the end of Series 3, so in fact a romance would not be a good idea for Sherlock... yet.  It’s really true that competence porn stars need to ‘keep their heads’. Absolutely. They need to get the job done at all times, and you know, having a heart is so inconvenient. I’m not being facetious (much).

It really helps that John is Sherlock’s conductor of light-- and it’s like, the major reason why it works (and why other ships don’t, haha).  Even then, emotional intimacy between partners isn’t ‘the’ solution, because then you have those pesky joint worries and insecurities. What you really need is an unbreakable, well-oiled machine. A couple so strong, so unbreakable, that nothing could touch them. Once they’re through their trial by fire, Armageddon could kick off above their heads and they’d be like, ‘oh well, it’s a Tuesday’.

Hell yeah. Hell yeah, of course I’m back to talking about Sherlock’s love life.

[mild-lunacy]

Holmes Fandom's Ego Ideal

Thinking further about @captain-liddy’s recent post about Sherlock’s ego issues and need to look cool, I was reminded about the idea early on that Victorian!Sherlock looked cooler and more mature, calmer or somehow more ‘controlled’ in the Special than in Series 3 in particular. Remember when the promo pics came out? 

A lot of people talked about how it’s a different Sherlock, if I remember correctly. Some people still seem to think Victorian!Sherlock is somehow more in control or more mature, even though TAB is one long essay on how completely out of control Sherlock is, to the point that he’s a total basketcase (more than we realized, and we realized a lot). Anyway, this isn’t to say that Sherlock doesn’t have the ability to put on a cool and controlled front, because clearly he does. But it’s ironic-- it’s interesting to me-- how easily we go back to our ideas of ‘the old Sherlock’, like Series 3 Sherlock is something he’d grow out of rather than the actual Sherlock from his actual POV as opposed to John’s. We (the public) are willing him into this box, just as his Victorian!John is doing. We are the readers he’s playing the ‘gentleman hero’ for, and John is playing the fool for us.

You can talk about the function that Sherlock’s Ego front has for him (as I just did in response to @deducingbbcsherlock’s meta on the Freudian aspect), and how it’s difficult for Sherlock (and for John) to let go of ‘Holmes’. I just think Holmes-- the archetype, the Ego Ideal-- is a similar sort of projection for a lot of his real fans (including myself, surely). On the one hand, Watson saying that 'people' need Holmes to hold himself to a higher standard is a deflection. On the meta level, that is actually the case in terms of the fandom. People do actually want Holmes to be more in control, more untouchable, more than human.

Of course, there's a split, both in our Holmes and in his fandom. There are contrasting impulses, clashing voices and desires: a lot of projection, in other words. The thing about the narrative in BBC Sherlock is that he and John are aware of this tension. We see it in the different kinds of fans, from John to Moriarty to Kitty Riley, all the way to Anderson and the Sheriarty girl in TEH. Sherlock's arc towards humanity is always against the backdrop of his audience and the whole range of other Holmes universe creators, both in a sort of rebellion and an homage. The modern adaptations have all slowly, imperfectly, pushed Holmes closer and closer to human... without ever, I think, overtly valuing his humanity, his deepest needs and wishes, over self-control and the call of the Work.

It seems that Holmes must be cleansed in some way, in order to remain the iconic detective in the funny hat. He must remain ambiguous, untouchable, alone even if he's with Watson. This was definitely the feeling I got (most recently) when watching Mr Holmes. He is only allowed to go so far; he can only learn so much. In Mr Holmes, as in Young Sherlock Holmes, TPLoSH and even Elementary, Sherlock can only have a tragic past if he's to be recognizable as himself, as 'Holmes'. To some degree, TAB both plays with this trope (with Redbeard and the mysterious 'Other One') and challenges it. As for our own 'Sherlock Holmes', his illustrator and his destiny remain delightfully out of control. Unpredictable, unprecedented, and finally allowed to be fully human, both in spite and because of his readers.

[spirallinginrabbitholes]

The first time I watched that video, I was okay. The second time has got me bawling my eyes out because it just hit me... Mycroft could die and I don't know what that's going to do to Sherlock. I'm so sad.

[mild-lunacy]

1/2 in response to your "fanon john thing", i'd agree that misrepresenting john as the "nice, normal, well-adjusted one" has a lot to do with the pov change in the show and intentionally unreliable narration, but that's already been talked about, so i thought i'd add one more thing that is perhaps even more significant: watson has very often been characterized as "the nice, normal, well-adjusted one" in many many sherlock holmes adaptations. even if these fic writers have never seen/read another

2/2 sherlock holmes adaptation, it’s something that’s fairly culturally prevalent for many people. our john is unusually in not being characterized like that (as he specifically says in asip: “i’m not the john watson you know”). so i think many people came into the show with a fixed idea of the two characters from other holmes adaptations and it’s hard to shake, because for a lot of people the basic cultural ID of holmes and watson is “holmes is the smart one, watson is the normal one.”

which actually brings up something mostly unrelated - i think a lot of people have difficulty seeing john as bi and/or in love with sherlock *because* they see him as “nice, normal, well-adjusted”. idk how many times i’ve heard “well if john is bi and/or in love with sherlock, then why doesn’t he just say so??” which is something a more well-adjusted person might have done by this point in their relationship, and they believe john is much more open with his emotions and so would have.

That’s fascinating! It sounds like it could very well be true, and the connection to expecting John to be straightforward (a ‘straight shooter’, haha) is also very likely. If he’s kind, outgoing, lovable and ‘normal’, then if he was bisexual… actually, you know, that’s another side point. In terms of cultural stereotypes, there’s something distinctly… off or untrustworthy about bisexuals, isn’t there? Gay people and straight people are easily expected to be portrayed as straightforward and honest, but there’s a ‘but’ when it comes to how people see bisexuals (to do with being tricked if one doesn’t ‘know’, so that being closeted may be trickier to portray as sympathetic for a bisexual man than a gay one), so perhaps there’s more sensitivity there. Biphobia, in other words. So there certainly could be multiple axes for why we need a ‘normal’ John: an emotional dynamic or binary-driven one for Johnlock, as @recentlyfolded and @tiltedsyllogism both suggested, as well as a social norm about what constitutes an ‘ordinary person’, ​ as @superspy-anon mentioned. Then there’s the media norm about who ‘John Watson’ is, for sure.

This is interesting in the light of people’s response to S3, too. Aside from fanfics being written where he’s gregarious and/or a ‘people person’– which people have basically said wasn’t based on canon but other sources– this suggests that people *did* think canon John was ‘well-adjusted’ and ‘normal’, which is directly supported by how many fans were shocked/displeased by surly, not-so-well-adjusted John in S3. While normalcy alone doesn’t suggest extraversion except in a very skewed fashion (though I do think it’s a factor), I can see how people could have read canon to mean he’s ‘well-adjusted’ and therefore a ‘people person’. At least, assuming that Sherlock is *not* well-adjusted– I agree with @vulgarweed’s point that Sherlock’s the more extraverted one, or at least the more socially-adjusted one (he’s just not very polite). These judgments of what constitutes social skills are multifaceted– Sherlock has one sort, John has another, and it depends which kind are important or most valuable in which kind of situation. That is to say, John has some social skills that Sherlock doesn’t, and vice versa. Anyway, so it does seem there may well be a canon reading underneath fanon John, even if you’d have to take ‘canon’ broadly.

[mild-lunacy]

Mr. Holmes and houses

So I saw Mr. Holmes, even though I kind of didn’t want to, since I largely find the idea of old Holmes being alone in his cottage in Sussex, suffering from dementia, rather too depressing for words. Granted, it would also be too bleak for me if he was with John, in theory at least. It was a great movie, though I think in many ways it supported the reasons why retirementlock generally feels like a depressing future I’d like to avoid as long as possible, no matter how many times we may insist it’s different if John is there. Of course, the movie doesn’t have John there, so that possibility technically remains. However, the idea that Holmes would only retire if he felt useless or otherwise disillusioned with the Work has been a recurrent one for me, and the movie does corroborate it. Given the man’s self-identity and self-worth revolved around the life of the mind, and the rigorous and constant use to which he put his intellect, redirecting all his passion to a mix of beekeeping and idleness seems like a major step back and/or recipe for black depression, at least if no cases present themselves at times, as they did in ACD canon. At the same time, the movie complicates the situation in various ways, which are quite interesting.

Mild spoilers below.

It’s interesting first and foremost because McKellen’s Holmes is quite a sensitive and vulnerable man, with clearly apparent insecurities and fears about emoting that cause lasting regret in his relationship with John and others. There’s the poignant sense that if only he could have learned to communicate more subjectively or sensitively with others, to show that he cared, he wouldn’t have needed to make a severe break and leave London as he did, or lose touch with John. Of course, any estrangement with John is anathema to me, canon though it ultimately is. The snapping point of a situation where any purely logical solution would be insufficient seems merely a matter of time. In a universe where the relationship with John isn’t capable of sustaining Sherlock at that point, he could only disconnect even more thoroughly than he already had to start with. In that sense, leaving London seems like a natural conclusion of a life spent largely avoiding attachments by definition, so the idea of leaving with John just seems… contradictory in this context.

At the same time, Holmes has a conversation with a woman who’s feeling very alone, very misunderstood and isolated from the person closest to her (which subtextually echoes Holmes’ own relationship with his John). He says that while one may be alone, if one is lucky, one finds a person to share one’s solitude. There is the inevitable sense that Holmes’ sense of his relationship with John is, on some level, this sharing of the solitude, ala Virginia Woolf, though in this universe, of course, he and John never fulfilled their potential. Although John came back for a month to try and reinvigorate him before he left London after being disillusioned, it wasn’t enough. In fact, they were estranged after that. This begs the question of why, of course.

On some level, clearly, Holmes expects John to be ‘enough’ but he isn’t, and at the same time, he doesn’t know how to ask for more from John. This is a conundrum you can see in many– if not most– of the most emotionally astute of Holmes movies. John doesn’t understand– though on many levels, Holmes generally ensures this for the sake of his ego as well as his solitude– and Holmes takes this as a sign that further intimacy is hopeless. It’s really weird how well this parallels with Sherlock. This film is actually a very good meditation on Sherlock’s future if the surface reading of the show were to pan out. John never giving up on Sherlock– not after a month, not after a year, not after two or three years, until Sherlock himself refuses to give up– that’s huge. They have to keep each other from letting their implicit respect for each other’s solitudes overwhelm any impulse to share space, to do what’s uncomfortable for both of them. They will never progress if they stick to what’s comfortable. Holmes in particular clearly benefits from airing out his feelings. The whole film was about the cathartic value of actually speaking the unspoken or glossed-over memories, writing them down and speaking the subjective truths aloud in person, as well. ‘I care’. He had to say that out loud. In this case, a little boy was Holmes’ muse, but of course Holmes is too old to make the sort of major change he once could have, to live a different life where he could have compromised, found a solution in how to be a man of logic in a world of feeling.

It’s that sort of tension between the two that gives the film its energy, and is represented by the flashbacks between London and Sussex. You can’t tell a story about Sherlock Holmes that is only set in a cottage. There are, of course, the useless embellishments of the legend of Sherlock Holmes (as burnished by John Watson), which become their own sort of barriers, but there are also the necessary aspects of identity, the habits of mind and manner that make Holmes who he is. Holmes’ identity is tied up with his Work, for better or for worse, although he is indeed a hobbyist at heart (as he says in the film), and can surely occupy himself any number of ways. Within the film, the idea of how to reconcile Holmes’ cerebral nature with his growing concern about others is left unsolved, though the question is clearly raised. My great hope for BBC Sherlock is that it sets out to square this circle, with the help of John. A lot of things become possible when John is given enough agency and personality in his own right. The fact that John is a cipher in the film is a glaring omission. He’s clearly so important to Holmes, and yet his sheer absence speaks volumes. Not his absence from Sussex so much as his absence from Holmes’ more analytical thoughts. It’s in this light that Sherlock’s speech in TSoT, his saying that John keeps him right, is especially meaningful.

In a way, one reason I’m so insistent on them needing London is because I’m insistent on squaring the circle of emotional engagement for Holmes on his home turf, where it’s most difficult and most necessary. In Sussex, Holmes is dependent on others’ emotional charity, for his options are so limited. His needs outweigh his strengths. One major weakness Holmes always had is that he needs to be right, and in this film, it’s precisely because he was wrong even though he was correct that he abandoned London. The emotional engagement, the union, is most interesting and necessary by far in the very place it’s most difficult. That’s John Watson’s special power and calling. I have to believe that.