Every Holmes Needs a Watson (and Vice Versa)

Where would Sherlock Holmes be without his Watson? Both names go hand in hand, even though Holmes does most of the work in their cases. In the TV series Sherlock, the Sherlock Holmes films, and, of course, the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novels, Sherlock Holmes' name is central to the title with no mention of Watson. Yet we all know the phrase, "Elementary, my dear Watson," and that despite his social problems, Holmes found himself a steadfast friend in Doctor John Watson.

Somewhere in the murky place that is Tumblr, someone reported the story of their ten-year-old sister theorizing that each person is either a Holmes or a Watson, but they need each other to balance out. I can't find the original post at the moment, but this small child explained how each of us has small quirks either mostly like Holmes or Watson. Her point was that eventually, every Holmes will find his Watson and every Watson will find his Holmes because they need each other. Holmes needs someone who will run around with him, go on adventures, be comfortable with a little danger, understand his moods - knowing when to let him sulk and when to push him to get out of 221B. Watson needs the excitement Holmes provides for him and the friendship Holmes has blessed so few with. Both men care for each other so strongly that theirs is one of the most famous friendships (or in the opinion of many, romances) in literary history.

Holmes is obviously crucial to the novel itself because he has the brain capacity to solve the crime. He has all the facts inside that funny little brain of his, allowing him to use either the brain-attic or mind palace to move information around until he can make sense of it. But he needs Watson to keep him in check in social situations - to tell him when he's said something "not good" or to gain information from a witness. The reader also needs Watson because we need some sort of filter between the abstract and terrifying Sherlock's mind must be. Watson is the perfect candidate to serve as the average, yet still intelligent enough to follow Holmes, man to serve as the medium between Holmes and the reader.

Other detective novels try to use this dynamic, but it isn't always the same. Watson asks the same questions as us, the reader. We are on his level. But in the television show, Poirot, based on Agatha Christie's detective of the same name, features the character Arthur Hastings, who only appears in eight of Christie's Poirot stories. Hastings is extraordinarily similar to Watson, but Hastings is also extremely stupid. His questions are unintelligent, annoying, and a waste of time (as is his character). In Edgar Allan Poe's detective stories about C. Auguste Dupin, the story is told in first-person narration by a nameless friend of Dupin. The friend has little personality and really only serves as the most basic of Watsons.

Few have been able to create a "sidekick" character who equals or surpasses Watson, who constantly proves to the reader exactly why we and Sherlock need him. We see this even more clearly in the BBC series, where Watson has no patience for Sherlock's antics and is willing to punch him when necessary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjv4hKwEucg). The Sherlock Holmes stories would be painful to read without Watson, but also very boring without Holmes. Both men have created an important relationship in the fictional apartment of 221B Baker Street that continues to intrigue fans to this day.