Very interesting and enjoyable musings on Sherlock! Warning: Ramblings of my own ahead.
I agree that the question goodness vs greatness raised there is not as prominent in canon, and in essence, I agree with all your musings, but strangely enough, I never doubted that Holmes had become a good man in canon, if he may not have been one in the early years. In fact, it was only after my involvement in canon that I even began to question it.
Yes, he treats Watson abysmally at times. Yes, he is incredibly selfish when it comes to cases. But... Maybe canon!Watson was so taken with him because he always saw past the facade, like John seems to do, and past the many flaws of his friend. If I remember correctly, the only real argument between the two of them in canon is over Holmes's drug use and Watson's marriage (even in Empty House, Watson doesn't make much of a fuss), but even later on, Watson criticises Holmes's actions. I remember, for example, his outrage at Holmes's treatment of that unfortunate woman in Charles Augustus Milverton... I always felt that while Holmes might seem to ignore Watson at times, he took his opinion into account.
While his affection might not be entirely evident, there are many passages which show Holmes's trust in Watson, and in his judgement, even admitting Watson's superiority to himself in some areas (even in DYIN, or in The Yellow Face - "Norbury", or in the Stockbroker's Clerk, in which Holmes says that he is grateful for Watson's presence). This, again, reminds me of that pool scene in Sherlock - there is something Sherlock has to do for the case, for himself, stop the criminal, Moriarty. But it is because he is sure that his decision is the same as John's would be that there is no trace of self-doubt - his hand does not shake. I would have loved to see such a scene in FINA, but somehow, between the lines, it was always there.
Holmes's insensitivity comes to an end when it comes to justice in a global sense. He may not be fair to others, or even his friend, but he cannot tolerate criminals - there is also the difference between between Sherlock and Jim. Sherlock does not care because it is no use to him or any of them - because he grieves over the dying, it won't stop it - if he wishes to do that, he has to do his work the only way he knows, and he is of the opinion that feelings would get in the way, while for John, they are the motivator that for Sherlock is justice itself. Jim does not care simply because he does not care. His victims' deaths are not inevitable, but deliberate. Jim has no value, no motive, nothing but boredom - he is the true sociopath. His criminal activities are a gigantic injustice, and therefore, Sherlock has to stop him.
no subject
Warning: Ramblings of my own ahead.
I agree that the question goodness vs greatness raised there is not as prominent in canon, and in essence, I agree with all your musings, but strangely enough, I never doubted that Holmes had become a good man in canon, if he may not have been one in the early years.
In fact, it was only after my involvement in canon that I even began to question it.
Yes, he treats Watson abysmally at times. Yes, he is incredibly selfish when it comes to cases. But...
Maybe canon!Watson was so taken with him because he always saw past the facade, like John seems to do, and past the many flaws of his friend. If I remember correctly, the only real argument between the two of them in canon is over Holmes's drug use and Watson's marriage (even in Empty House, Watson doesn't make much of a fuss), but even later on, Watson criticises Holmes's actions. I remember, for example, his outrage at Holmes's treatment of that unfortunate woman in Charles Augustus Milverton... I always felt that while Holmes might seem to ignore Watson at times, he took his opinion into account.
While his affection might not be entirely evident, there are many passages which show Holmes's trust in Watson, and in his judgement, even admitting Watson's superiority to himself in some areas (even in DYIN, or in The Yellow Face - "Norbury", or in the Stockbroker's Clerk, in which Holmes says that he is grateful for Watson's presence).
This, again, reminds me of that pool scene in Sherlock - there is something Sherlock has to do for the case, for himself, stop the criminal, Moriarty. But it is because he is sure that his decision is the same as John's would be that there is no trace of self-doubt - his hand does not shake.
I would have loved to see such a scene in FINA, but somehow, between the lines, it was always there.
Holmes's insensitivity comes to an end when it comes to justice in a global sense. He may not be fair to others, or even his friend, but he cannot tolerate criminals - there is also the difference between between Sherlock and Jim.
Sherlock does not care because it is no use to him or any of them - because he grieves over the dying, it won't stop it - if he wishes to do that, he has to do his work the only way he knows, and he is of the opinion that feelings would get in the way, while for John, they are the motivator that for Sherlock is justice itself.
Jim does not care simply because he does not care. His victims' deaths are not inevitable, but deliberate. Jim has no value, no motive, nothing but boredom - he is the true sociopath. His criminal activities are a gigantic injustice, and therefore, Sherlock has to stop him.