Dynamic Duo
The names Sherlock and Watson seem to go hand in hand. Yet, should they really be together?
As we discussed in class on Tuesday, Holmes is a huge jerk to Watson.
"It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of simulating it. I must confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt." (Hounds, CH.1 page 6.)
His socially inept actions don't stop there. While Watson was exploring the hut in the hills, Watson is essentially ambushed by Holmes. The poor fellow was terrified and had his pistol cocked, but then - nope! Not a murderer. Just Holmes. After Holmes essentially recaps all of what Watson himself has learned (and chronicled for Holmes!), Holmes admits to lying to Watson.
"That was what I wished you to think."
"Then you used me, and yet do not trust me!" I cried with some bitterness. "I think I have deserved better at your hands, Holmes." (Hounds, CH.12, page 124).
Yes, you may say that this was a means to an end, a necessary step in the hunting of their culprit. However, in both of these cases, the use of Watson is impersonal and selfish. Holmes sent Watson (without his prior permission, the arrangement was made spontaneously in London) to the middle of the countryside where he was being constantly tailed by the murderer and Fido.
So why does Holmes insist on keeping Watson alongside him when he alone is clearly capable of solving the crime?
Professionally, Watson isn't a necessary piece of the murder-solving business, and as friends, Watson is being unfairly taken advantage of (seriously) by Holmes.
As we discussed in class on Tuesday, Holmes is a huge jerk to Watson.
"It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of simulating it. I must confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt." (Hounds, CH.1 page 6.)
His socially inept actions don't stop there. While Watson was exploring the hut in the hills, Watson is essentially ambushed by Holmes. The poor fellow was terrified and had his pistol cocked, but then - nope! Not a murderer. Just Holmes. After Holmes essentially recaps all of what Watson himself has learned (and chronicled for Holmes!), Holmes admits to lying to Watson.
"That was what I wished you to think."
"Then you used me, and yet do not trust me!" I cried with some bitterness. "I think I have deserved better at your hands, Holmes." (Hounds, CH.12, page 124).
Yes, you may say that this was a means to an end, a necessary step in the hunting of their culprit. However, in both of these cases, the use of Watson is impersonal and selfish. Holmes sent Watson (without his prior permission, the arrangement was made spontaneously in London) to the middle of the countryside where he was being constantly tailed by the murderer and Fido.
So why does Holmes insist on keeping Watson alongside him when he alone is clearly capable of solving the crime?
Professionally, Watson isn't a necessary piece of the murder-solving business, and as friends, Watson is being unfairly taken advantage of (seriously) by Holmes.
I think that the implication is that Sherlock needs someone to showoff in front of. He needs someone to prove his genius to. However, I think Watson likes the adventure, and puts up with some of Sherlock's odder qualities so that he can part of the cool mysteries.
ReplyDeleteIf we overlook the obvious queer-coding and baiting throughout the television show, and some quotes from the stories that can be interpreted as coding as well, I think that Sherlock and John both rely on each other to fullfil their needs. Sherlock wants an audience and someone to do his biding. John wants a "friend", no matter how cruel he is, and enjoys the thrill that comes with mysterious.
ReplyDeleteI think while Sherlock likes to say he doesn't have any friends since it might interfere with his work, I think he really does like having Watson around. If not for the friendship, then Sherlock at least likes having someone around to share his ideas with and try to gain new perspective (like your first quote). As for Watson, it just seems like him and Sherlock are old friends, and he's to good of a man to give up an old friendship.
ReplyDelete