Meta Rec: Difference and the Critical Possibilities of Sherlock

[chapbook.livejournal.com]

Title: Difference and the Critical Possibilities of Sherlock
Author: abrae
Pairing: Gen
Length: 2,263
Rating: NR (G)
Warnings: none
Verse: Sherlock BBC
Author's summary: An exploration of Sherlock's potential critique of normative masculinity.

Reccer's comments: For those of you put off by Dr. John Watson in S3, this outstanding, enlightening meta is especially for you. Abrae was puzzled and frustrated by John's behavior and dialogue and decided to trace John's progression through all three seasons, coming up with answers that fit what we see and hear of this well-loved character. In short, John Watson of S3 is the product of: 1) his actions and experiences in S1 and S2 (what he does and says in S3 does not come out of the blue) and 2) what John (vs. the viewer) is permitted to see of Sherlock's emotions and motivations, partly the result of switching the POV character from John (S1, S2) to Sherlock (S3). Throughout Abrae uncovers John and Sherlock's contrasting and evolving attitudes towards difference in themselves and others, concluding that John's major challenge in S4 will be to accept difference in himself and Sherlock. This is something he must do before he can truly see Sherlock as a complex, flawed human being with the capacity to love, someone who refuses to be limited by John's determination to place everyone into neat, stereotyped categories.

Abrae argues convincingly, supporting her claims with relevant evidence from all three seasons. She ably gives voice to my own concerns regarding John in the first two seasons, flaws which, paradoxically, make him much more human and potentially even more likeable (if he can even partly overcome them!) than the unerringly emotionally perceptive BAMF of fanon.

Excerpt: John is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he has a (nascent) ability to not just see, but appreciate, people for who they are; on the other, it’s tightly constrained by the way he - and men like him - understand the world and their role in it, and this is where I situate the potential critique of normative masculinity that Sherlock has to offer. Before anything else, John is a white, cisgendered, ostensibly heterosexual, neurotypical man in present-day England. He is “Everyman,” for a certain definition of “every,” and as such his life is defined both by certain self-perceived responsibilities and certain privileges. He’s a soldier and a breadwinner - he fights, he destroys, he upholds. He’s a man in search of a woman, not because he seems to have any great chemistry with them (Sarah, even more than Mary, comes closest - at least we witness that early spark of interest), but because that’s part of what defines masculinity - as John sees it and society defines it. John identifies himself (and others) through neat labels: soldier, doctor, not-gay, colleague, boyfriend, husband; wife, genius, machine. As relentlessly as Sherlock categorizes information, John categorizes people, and in such a way as to leave little room for difference - in others, but most viciously in himself.

Note: Very recently abrae has turned this into a series, with the remaining portions expanding upon this essay, which should be treated as a summary of her findings.

Comments

[keerawa.livejournal.com]

That was interesting, and I never would have read it without your rec. Thank you!

[chapbook.livejournal.com]

You're welcome!

I'm glad you enjoyed it. There's been lots of meta, so I tried to choose something thoughtful that addressed a current concern in the Sherlock fandom.