I Can't Decide If I Want To Squeeze Him Enthusiastically Like A Dog Toy, Or Put Him Under A Microscope

I can't decide if I want to squeeze him enthusiastically like a dog toy, or put him under a microscope for intense observation.

Ok you can get a little Watson. As a treat.

[ID: a digital drawing of Watson in his nightgown with a red smoking jacket on top. He's lighting his pipe. /End ID]

*watson enters sitting room occupied by holmes and client*

watson: oh i'm so sorry for intruding. i'll just leave--

holmes: *JUMPS OVER SETTEE* *PULLS WATSON INSIDE* *SLAMS DOOR* *PUSHES WATSON INTO ARMCHAIR*

holmes: this is my friend and soulmate, dr watson

In The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton, Watson is described as "a middle-sized, strongly built man with a square jaw, thick neck, and moustache". And in His Last Bow, he's called "a heavily built, elderly man with a grey moustache". So, I would say that Watson is a bear.

This excludes BBC Sherlock's Watson, who we all know is a hedgehog.

ACD said that Holmes looks like a hawk but i need to know what kind of animal Watson looks like.

Behold! One of my favourite moments from Granada's Sherlock Holmes series. Holmes' little dance to show Watson how the Dancing Men code works is always so precious to watch.

To me, Watson has always, and should always, have a little bit of dramatic poet in him. <3

"sherlock holmes is the dramatic one"

doctor john watson:

I know we all like to laugh at Watson for taking such pains to conceal dates and people and events but being obviously obvious about his love for Holmes but like. hear me out. what if he’s not. what if it’s on purpose

Ok, so. Watson is an intelligent man. He is not stupid. He would not read his drafts and not notice the obvious romanticism. I think a lot of evidence supports the idea that he’s doing it on purpose. I mean, he even defends himself when Holmes accuses him of romanticising the stories by saying that the romance was there and he’s just reporting it the way it was. The interesting question is just, why? Why not be more careful?

Here’s what I think: uhm. so. multiple things.

1. Imagine writing stories about the person you love above anything else in the world. The person who seems to you so incredible and unbelievable and wonderful that you’re in awe they even exist and even more that they have chosen you. How do you write about them without that bleeding through. Holmes isn’t just a person that appears in the stories, the stories are completely about him and his personality. Of course Watson notices that the way he sees Holmes is evident in the loving descriptions. But what, really, can he do? Change or omit parts of Holmes’ personality? Make up a Holmes character for his stories? Invent a Holmes who he is not in love with and who does not inspire the same feelings of awe and admiration? He might as well just write a different story. The whole point of these stories is that they’re about Holmes. Or alternatively, could he somehow describe every one of Holmes’ personality traits rationally and without emotion? No, he couldn’t. “Fascinating” and “wonderful” are just traits that describe Holmes to him. He never says that he loves Holmes. We can only infer it from those descriptions. How is he supposed to describe Holmes if he can’t use them?

2. In extension of that: Watson’s perspective is essential to the stories. He is the only one who understands Holmes. He is the only one who can tell us about the kindness and compassion and the silliness and the deep care for humans and the devotion to justice because he’s the only one who gets to see everything. Taking any other perspective would probably result in a much worse portrayal. Knowing that Holmes is by every standard very neurodivergent and queer and generally just absolutely not “normal”, that portrayal probably wouldn’t be kind and it would miss all of those key features of his character that Watson understands. So Watson can not take another perspective that isn’t his own, not just because he’s too in love but because it would just not work.

3. Perhaps most importantly: Here’s what is actually my main point. What if… Imagine this. You’re a normal Victorian person. You have the normal views of the time. You read the Sherlock Holmes stories. You read them because the cases are interesting and Holmes is a curious personality but, unconsciously, you also absorb everything else that’s in the stories. The deep bond between these two men. The love. The fact that they would do anything for each other. The way that Holmes is someone who is so strange and abnormal by your standards but who is still deeply loved and who deeply loves and who is kind and funny and a good person. And maybe you don’t realise it but in some way, it influences you nonetheless. Perhaps the next time you meet a person who acts “weird” or “abnormal”, they remind you of Holmes and you have to smile. Maybe the next time people mention the unspeakable sin of love between two men, something doesn’t sit quite right with you. Maybe, just maybe, you begin to think.

I think Watson knows this. I think this is why he writes. Of course he also wants to tell everyone how amazing his husband is, but mostly, he really wants to live in a world where he is actually able to tell everyone that that’s his husband. And this is his part. Maybe only 5% of readers really begin to change their minds about what is “abnormal” and what is acceptable. Maybe it’s only a dozen people. Maybe it’s one person. It all matters. Change doesn’t come suddenly. Change comes when many people change their minds. And here is something he can do. Of course it’s obvious. Not obvious enough to be censored, that would defeat the purpose, but obvious enough to make his point. Of course it’s dangerous. It’s a balancing act but it’s worth it. Even if just one person changes their mind, it’s worth it.