i think it says something about mofftiss that their best, most satisfyingly laid out character arcs are a) completely accidental and b) involve abuse.
like! looking just at what is said and shown in the show, there is really little complaint to be had about the character arcs of the holmes parents being abusive and neglectful, particularly to mycroft (see here for an in-depth episode-by-episode analysis). it's satisfyingly laid out, the evidence gradually building until it grows to be undeniable (in my opinion). it explains a lot about mycroft's character, as well as his interactions with sherlock. there is foreshadowing from A Study in Pink. i have my complaints about how mofftiss don't see it as abusive -- i'm somewhat concerned for moffat's kid -- and about how mycroft deserves better, but strictly from a character perspective of mycroft and sherlock, neglectful parents really do make the most sense. (the parentification, isolation and abuse is a little unnecessary, though.)
as for john watson being abusive to sherlock? that's somewhat less well done -- really, the abusive holmes parents arc is *chef's kiss* -- but it's still satisfyingly laid out. personally, i prefer to view john as falling off a cliff of his kindness and goodness as a person in between seasons 2 and 3, but others have found substantial foreshadowing for That Morgue Beating (and later things, and earlier things) early -- @rosemelodyshah has something about John and Sherlock's efforts to comfort Sarah in The Blind Banker (or, in John's case, "efforts" to "comfort" Sarah). it also sheds new light on the characters. john convincing sherlock that mycroft is not to be trusted at the start of tfp? it gets so much worse if you look at john as abusive, because that's fairly clearly john trying to isolate sherlock, playing on his distrust of mycroft to remove the one person who a) cares about sherlock deeply and b) has the power to actually Do Something about john's abusiveness.
and that's not to say that i don't read fics with decent holmes parents (my default is still neglectful/abusive until shown otherwise though) or like johnlock. i do! i'm fine with ignoring or cherry-picking canon. it's what i do with tfp -- take the bits i like and carefully edit out eurus and that whole insanity. but going purely based on the show's evidence, and taking it all at face value, the conclusion i reach is that:
"john watson" is an abusive scumbag of a person and should not be allowed anywhere near sherlock holmes ever again.
he's actually really interesting as an inverse to sherlock -- while sherlock is superficially an asshole he's a fundamentally good human being, and john looks sweet and unassuming and knows how to navigate society but is in fact an abusive scumbag using his superficial niceness and grasp of social cues to act with relative impunity. it's actually a great commentary on the nature of abuse and abusers! too bad it's unintentional.
mycroft deserves better in life
mark gatiss has some serious Issues with his brother that i don't think he's quite worked through. (for real it seems like he ascribes this fundamental malice to mycroft in script which makes perfect sense if you read his comments about how his brother used to beat him up and bully him or something, i forget the exact details -- he's writing mycroft and mycroft's interactions as though it's a given mycroft did that but we never actually see him doing that.)
the fact that mycroft doesn't go no contact with his parents after they consistently abuse him says a lot about the man's mental health and views
actually, further thought: they actually worked in another insightful and intriguing point completely accidentally and without realizing it! if we look at mycroft's relationship with his parents and sherlock's relationship with john we see similarities. both of them consistently make room for, are loyal to a fault for, and allow themselves to not only be abused but think they deserve it, by abusers! obviously this is mostly just them both being abusive relationships, but still. for all their intelligence, their upbringing prepared them both to be abused. and that's a fascinating parallel, both of them quietly working and sacrificing so so much for people who fundamentally do not deserve it!
like it's honestly impressive how oblivious mofftiss seem to be to some of the most insightful points, well-laid-out character arcs and genuinely disturbing things in the show.
(also while i'm at it: tfp actually kind of works as a last episode! it sheds new light on the characters and show. unfortunately for mofftiss, that new light is that the show fucking sucked and had numerous fucking awful parts from very early on.)
You are so absolutely right!! And I'd like to add other points of S1&2 abusive John:
Baskerville. Literally Baskerville. People mistake this episode so much I can't even:
Sherlock sees the dog and he's terrified. He's terrified because his mind has betrayed him with this beast and he doesn't know what to do about it, he's scared— and he turns to John in his time of need and is vulnerable. And what does John do? He laughs at Sherlock and goes all "come on you're not really entertaining that possibility are you?? It's all in your head and you're going crazy. Calm down."
Sherlock is understandably hurt by this and then goes on to prove that he hasn't lost his mind by deducing a bunch of people there. Then John has the guts to go "but we're friends" and gets insulted when Sherlock snaps back that he has no friends, because John just say him be vulnerable (like he's always nagging Sherlock to be, btw) and called it insane all in your head stupidness. And now he's angry that this very much not-friend thing is treated as such, and he's angry that Sherlock build up walls.
And Sherlock apologises, because apparently the base of Sherlock and John in BBC is full of John beinf awful and toxic and abusive and hypocritical, and Sherlock having to apologise anyway.
And a plus point here bc I'm tired of people forgetting: Yes, while Sherlock thought the drug was in the sugar, it actually wasn't and Sherlock didn't actually drug him. Stop adding Baskerville to the list of Sherlock drugging John.
The Blind Banker.
Remember how everyone talks about how John is instantly great and good with Sherlock and how the Mycroft scene is proof of that?? Well, clearly Mycroft should have scared him a bit more because Shelrock's university bully reaches out, insults and humiliates him, and John sits there smirking like yeah that's wonderful.
And then Sherlock says John's my friend, and you know what John does? Denies it instantly. Sherlock's barely finished his sentence wnd he's instantly been demoted. In front of his bully. The "you didn't talk to the secetary you lied to annoy him" line does not erase the fact that John stayed silent while his so called best friend was humiliated and then added to it.
And on top of that, going back to Baskerville, the first time John ever brings up being a friend of Sherlock's is after he emotionally and mentally insults and breaks him down because Sherlock clammed up as a direct result of his vile cruelty. Before that, he's wholeheartedly denied it. Sherlock didn't even know that this toxic thing they were having was being called friendship, but yeah, John is right to be mad. Who decided to throw rocks at someone and then declare friendship?? Who waits until they've kicked someone to bring up the fact that they cinsider the guy their friend?? No one mentally sane, I'd argue.
And then there's his most dangerous insistence, again and again:
Emotions while Shelrock's solving cases. Emotions that, we've seen, lead to his demise. He tells Sherlock that "There are lives at stake. Actual, human lives. I just want to know, do you care about that at all?" In The Great Game. This is after Sherlock's reaction to that woman dying btw. I just... He's not stupid. He keeps acting like Sherlock is insane for focusing on trying to save people and it's ridiculous to me.
This, by the way, the same guy who we're told about in the first episode as "you're not haunter by the war, Dr Watson. You miss it." And not long after kills a guy for someone he barely knows, and then immediately is normal and joking and laughing about it.
This is the same guy who, the moment the danger is over, as I've mentioned in case of Sarah's comforting, immediately finds it a hilarious story to tell at dinner and moves on in his life completely. I actually can't remember if he comforts one person throughout the whole show. Attempts such as Sarah's do not count one bit.
Sherlock comforts Sarah. Sherlock comforts the girl on the plane. Sherlock talks to I believe all the victims or families of victims throughout the show. Sherlock attempts to talk (kindly, btw) to the girl in Riechenbach. Sherlock is the one that helps Henry emotionally. He's the one that talks and keeps (or tries to keep, in some cases) the peoole in The Great Game calm. He's the one that stops James Sholto, John's pre-show friend, from letting himself die. He's the one that actually talks to Mary through most of S3 and 4 and he's genuinely more interested in saving her (which brings into question why it's treated like his fault, but not the point here). He's the one that brings Archie out of his shell, that helps Janine out, that desprately wants to stop Magnessum from taking advantage of people. He's the one who talks to that's Black Lotus woman in TBB and who helps Billy and, while not exactly a victim, he's the one who helps Irene. He's wayy nicer than John but oeople just don't notice that because (truama being the main reason, the other being his job is dangerous and he cannot afford the risks emotions can bring while working dangerous cases) he's outwardly sheilded.
He's also literally the only reason John is alive. Or has anyone to talk to. Or was "healed" of his issues at the start of the show.
