Does Dr Watson get the credit he deserves?

Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective and all the minutiae of his invented world are globally famous. It is impossible to wear a deerstalker without people immediately directing the word 'Sherlock' at you (and one speaks from experience here).

Sherlock himself is justifiably famous. the machine like man, the cold, calculating reasoning machine, the man of the iron constitution, the model by which all later detectives are judged.

Yet just as important to the whole Sherlockian world is the man who supposedly recounts most of the adventures therein, Dr John H Watson lately returned from the Afghan wars with a bullet in his leg (or arm or even'limb' depending which story you read!).

                                

Watson is Holmes 'Boswell' recording his actions and throwing light upon them for the world. He appears in 93% of all the Holmes stories Conan Doyle created and his absence is keenly felt in the ones he is absent from. He is the perfect foil to Holmes. more emotional, more humane and more capable of representing the views of the average reader. But we must not undersell Watson. he is a man of action. Prepared to fight, to trespass, to go beyond the call of duty for his friend and who in return is the one person in the world we feel Holmes may implicitly trust and by extension care about.

So why doesn't Watson the character seem to get more respect from the general public? Two words...Nigel Bruce! his portrayal as a fat, bumbling incompetent alongside Basil Rathbone's ice cold Holmes in many films was once all pervasive and still echoes in the popular consciousness.


                                 
That's not to undersell 'Willy' Bruce. this was a marvellous comic turn. A real inhabiting of a character in a humorous tour de force that still resonates today. But does it represent THE Watson? A military man of action, a qualified Dr who is intelligent and dignified? Surely not.

In recent years we have seen a counterbalancing of this with representations of Watson as a gambling adventurer;

                              

Or 'John' in 'Sherlock' who is portrayed as a man happier when risks are being taken and who's loyalty can never be called into question;

             

So which is nearest to the truth. Well in truth there can be no definitive version. Like Shakespeare the characterisations will be re-worked for succeeding generations reflecting the zeitgeist of the ties from which they are borne.

The point is this; we should celebrate John Hamish Watson MD every bit as much as Sherlock Holmes Without there brilliant interacti0on, without the counterpoint to Holmes, without the bedrock of their friendship that the whole Sherlockian world revolves around the stories wouldn't be nearly as successful.

So raise a cheer for Watson - Hip hip Huzzah!

'None of the above' would be better than not voting

Russell Brand caused something of a media mini-storm recently with his typically verbose declaration of the fact that he does not vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

In fact, whatever one thinks of Brand, or Paxman, or the presentation, it cannot be argued that voter apathy is a major issue with declining voter turnout over the last 50 years

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

So what to do? I have read endless things on voter engagement. Ways to interest everyday people in politics. in my experience however everyday people don't like politics, don't trust politicians and don't want to talk about the issues. the latter partially due to that fine British mantra, - 'don't talk about politics or religion and you'll be fine'.

I read recently in the 'i' newspaper the suggestion put forward that 'None of the above' should be included on the ballot paper.

At first glance this does not seem much of a solution. Yet oddly I think it might be! Plenty of people in the U didn't vote in the last election and we have a coalition government because no one party was favoured enough to get in alone. What if one of them had though? By even a small margin? They would claim their victory (not voted  for by the majority) was a success and they were mandated to carry out their programme of government.

If you had 'noe of the above' though this would be a protest vote. Ticking it wouldn't be a spoiled paper so if it got the most voters it would be recorded. Obviously the next best placed actual person would 'win' but how chastened would they be to have been runner up to a protest vote?

Imagine a government formed in the shadow of a majority vote of 'none of the above'. Nobody could claim a mandate and politicians would know just how people really felt.

Also I believe people would feel empowered to vote if they could register a protest. Who knows, maybe, just maybe voting that way would engage them a little more and in another election they may pick someone!