Back already - yes I do seem to be on a blogging roll atm, don't I? If you read me that is - whoever you are, wherever!
Anyway, so just caught up on some recent on the record statements made by BBC's Sherlock writer Moffat and I had random things to say/point out/ question.
First. Climax to third season will leave us frustrated as ever - is that supposed to be comforting? I guess, when one begins to look at "frustrated" and "comforting" as words in Moffat's dictionary that can be implied in a contrary sense...? I have ample faith in these writers though - for all the reasons and history. I'm going to sustain the wait believing "frustrated" has an encouraging connotation too.
I love his takes on Benedict and Martin as the leads - both of them, but what he says for Martin definitely takes the cake!
"He makes ordinary people fascinating. He finds poetry in just being ordinary, and that's an extraordinary, exquisite gift. He can tell the story of our lives and make it fascinating."
Now while I had a first "wow" reaction to just the way he said that bit, I have some contentions to raise on second thoughts. The lines themselves make you think of ordinary as poetic. My question is, is John really an ordinary character? When you see him alongside Sherlock, sure. Which is like all the time. But John is far from ordinary. He is the guy Sherlock accepted first time, in the first go, to have for a room mate. And he doesn't get the door closed on his face for being a distracting set of molecules to Holmes's thinking process. Not to mention he manages to be witty - even in Sherlock's formidable presence. Yes. Watson is anything but ordinary.
But since he does seem overtly so, given Sherlock's extent of extra-ordinary, I see what Moffat is trying to say. That Watson is not a character who should fade away in the shadows of Sherlock. And that Martin doesn't. That he makes ordinary seem quite an attribute, that version of ordinary which he represents, which appeals even to Sherlock.
And come to think of it, why we really value Watson, hang on to him, is because Sherlock does! Somehow when a man/character that values nothing and no one latches onto anything/anyone, taking the cue is inevitable. Make any-thing/one appeal to a protagonist of Sherlock's league, and you can put money on how infallible that endorsement is!
And here's another way of looking at it too. Moffat calling Watson ordinary. If I can't make this statement a unanimous stand, I can at least guarantee it is generic with rare exception. Watching Sherlock is like watching someone you cannot be. Watching Watson - especially alongside Holmes - is like watching someone you can be. And someone you may even want to be, given that's the closest to get to your cannot be replicated hero material Sherlock.
Watson is definitely the one we connect with in the series. Sherlock awes us. Moriarty leaves us hanging between realms of awe and despair at his contrasting but almost equal genius. Or is it lunacy? (=D) But Watson - he's the one we can connect with. There is someone like Mrs. Hudson - we can love, but not really marvel in a real sense. There is Lestrade - we can feel even strongly about for the sheer fidelity he shows for Holmes's extraordinary even if it's always about being the back burner guy in turn. But Watson, he is match. He strikes that balance between what awes us as untouchable in Sherlock, and what we can still, somewhere, manage to implement.
So well. I didn't mean for this to end up being a character analysis post. Just really liked how Moffat said that bit. And belatedly realized his knack of evoking connection and admiration by underrating. And still liked how he did that too! But mostly, it's just the sound of those lines. Put together like that. Definitely for keeps!
[Link to the written account of Moffat's statements - http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-05-16/steven-moffat-promises-a-puzzling-climax-to-sherlock%27s-third-series]