SHERLOCK HOLMES HAS ZOOMIES WHEN HE'S FOUND A CLUE

SHERLOCK HOLMES HAS ZOOMIES WHEN HE'S FOUND A CLUE

"In an instant, he was tense and alert, his eyes shining, his face set, his limbs quivering with eager activity. He was out on the lawn, in through the window, round the room and up into the bedroom for all the world like a dashing foxhound drawing a cover."

LITERALLY HAS TO TELL EVERYONE ABOUT HOW EXCITED HE IS

"In the bedroom, he made a rapid cast around and ended by throwing open the window which appeared to give him some fresh course for excitement for he leaned out of it with loud ejaculations of interest and delight."

-> watson wrote all of these in his notes.

from Sherlock Holmes - The Adventure of The Devil's Foot.

Dr. Watson is just as important of a character as Sherlock Holmes. You cannot get rid of or replace him. He is the narrator. The stories are about Holmes, but it's through WATSON that we have them in the first place. He's not "just" the sidekick. He is the main character.

“By the Fireplace” by Vladimir Dashkevich from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson played by me on kalimba

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.

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.

Does anyone else regularly get the intense urge to make a Jeeves & Wooster AU for Sherlock Holmes and John Watson, or is it just me? The only problem I have that's preventing me from writing it is constantly going back and forth as to whether Watson would be Wooster, or if Holmes would. Because, to be fair, I can see a little bit of Jeeves in both of them.