The first isn’t much of a fanwank, as I belive it is more or less the reason Holmes actually gave for the omission in The Empty House, with the exception of the bit about liking Watson more.
Plus, Mycroft was a riddle wrapped in an enigma who was well used to having lots of secrets through his government work. Watson was a more open sort.
This is correct, they may have been totally ignorant of Claudius’s scheme. In Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead they DO know because they open the letter, although only after they are well on their way to England. After some discussion they basically decide “Who are we to go against the king?” and intend to go through with the plan. Although in R&G Are Dead the two don’t really seem to know Hamlet all that well (it’s suggested that this is because they didn’t even exist until shortly before they were needed “onstage” in Hamlet).
Thinking of Jane Austen again, although Emma Woodhouse has more-or-less good intentions she’s actually a terrible friend to Harriet Smith and comes close to ruining her chances at a happy marriage and respectable life. Although Emma believes she’s grooming her new friend for marriage to a gentleman, there’s essentially zero chance that this will ever happen. (Harriet has little going for her but her looks, and all the eligible gentlemen in the area are already interested in other women.) Harriet would, at best, have wound up either Emma’s totally subservient spinster companion or perhaps some gentleman’s mistress. Without Emma’s interference Harriet would have had the same happy ending she gets at the end of the book, only much sooner.
Two genre books here, not sure if ‘literature’ would describe either one of 'em, but…
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy novels - Arthur/Ford and Ford/Zaphod. Admittedly, Douglas Adams doesn’t really do ‘relationships’ in these books at all – aside from Arthur/Fenchurch, and I don’t even remember that very well – but there’s a remoteness in the men’s interactions that always bugs me a bit when I read the books. They get irritated with one another pretty easily, rarely defend one another (though Ford shows some signs of protectiveness with Arthur, such as when the mice are after the earthman’s brain), and give up entirely on each other for years at a time.
I admit it’d be daft to expect anything better from Zaphod, who sometimes behaves like a sociopath, but I think more highly of Ford and so my expectations are higher too. I mean, sure, the books are light-hearted comedies and Adams wasn’t much for sincerity or warmth; such emotions are usually beyond the scope of the series. I adore the first three books, make no mistake. Still, I always wish I could engage a bit more with the characters than I do. I hope this isn’t too blasphemous!
Harry Potter series: No, I don’t mean Harry/Ron/Hermione. They’re pretty good examples of close friends with good relationships. I mean … is Harry as good a friend to Ron and Hermione as they are to him? Probably not, though I’ll leave that to others to decide. I think he’s self-involved, understandably so, but he still manages to be quite supportive. Spoilers below for Prisoner of Azkaban and subsequent books:
[spoiler]But the “worst best friends” I mean are the so-called Marauders, i.e. James, Sirius, Remus and Peter. On the plus side, there’s no doubt that James, Sirius and Peter behaved generously by learning to become Animorphmagi to keep Remus company; they kept his secret for quite a while, too. Sirius clearly thought the world of James and, I expect, vice versa.
On the downside: James and Sirius seemed to have looked on Peter with benign contempt, like smug, benevolent celebrity rockstars bestowing grace upon a roadie. Meanwhile, Sirius callously pulled a ‘prank’ on Snape hoping to let Werewolf!Remus attack/scare Snape, apparently not giving a crap that if Werewolf!Remus killed Snape, it would at least result in Remus being tossed out of Hogwarts, and quite possibly imprisoned if not outright executed. (Not to mention that gentle Remus would’ve been personally devastated.) After graduating, Sirius (possibly due to Peter’s influence) believed Remus was a spy, and apparently convinced James that Remus was untrustworthy, which is what led to Peter being the Secret Keeper in the first place. There appears to have been a rift between James/Sirius/Peter and Remus, evidenced by the distance between them in the photo of the Order of the Phoenix; this may have been because of Peter’s trying to stir up suspicion. And of course, all this led up to Peter performing the ultimate act of betrayal that got James and his wife killed, Sirius arrested and basically tortured for the crime, and Remus left friendless & alone.
Whew. With best friends like these…![/spoiler]
Edited to Add: ooh Lamia, Emma/Harriet is a great example!! Spot on.
Also, in The Devil’s Foot, Holmes is extremely apologetic about his idiocy.
I thought the jerkiest thing Holmes ever did was in a short story (can’t remember the name) where Mrs. Hudson called for Watson because Holmes appeared to be dying. Watson rushes over and tries to treat Holmes, but Holmes refuses to let him anywhere near, saying that Watson was completely incompetent. Then he demands that Watson fetch a certain expert on (I think) Amazonian poisons.
Watson summons the expert, and begs Holmes to let him stay. Holmes lets him hide behind his headboard to listen in, and then just about forgets he’s there. Turns out the expert had sent a poisoned trap to Holmes, Holmes faked dying to get a confession out of the expert, and Watson was there to witness it.
But, of course, while it occurred to Holmes that he could have let Watson into the ruse, he didn’t because he didn’t believe Watson could act well enough to fake out the expert.
Hmph.
You know, I have been told that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I really am stunned that I never noticed House = Holmes until just now.
And Wilson = Watson. 
Yeah. I see Wilson = Watson now. I am seeing lots of parrallels now. But how is it I never seen it before. I watch House whenever I can.
While I agree with all of this, it seems to me that Emma’s figuring this out on her own (and thus becoming a better person and a better friend) is sort of the point of the book. I don’t think it quite fits into the same category as Ermengarde, who is a crap friend because she’s dumb as a brick, and never gets better.
Kitty Forster is a dreadful friend to Lydia Bennett.
O’Brien was Smith’s friend at first.
Then…
The Case of The Dying Detective to which you have just beaten me!
That’s the point - Holmes knows almost at once that he is talking about Watson’s brother. But he goes ahead with the characterization of Watson’s brother as a careless, untidy drunk.
Regards,
Shodan
Heh, you are quite right, I forgot about that one. 
Emma becoming a better person and learning to stop meddling in other people’s lives is basically the point of Emma, but she never becomes a particularly good friend to Harriet Smith. It’s not long after she realizes she has to stop trying to run Harriet’s life that Emma decides “their friendship must change into a calmer sort of goodwill”. This is really for the best for Harriet and apparently what she wants as well, but it seems that Emma doesn’t intend to have much to do with her socially anymore after Harriet’s marriage. They’re going to be more friendly aquaintances than real friends.
I know. What I mean is that Holmes got momentarily forgot that he was not talking about something his friend could be dispassionate about. As I recall, what happened was that Holmes made a statement about how he could draw tons of information about a person from his personal possessions. Watson calls bullshit and challenges him to do so from the watch he had just inherited. Holmes, who does not know the story, examines the watch, spends a few minutes thinking about it, and in so doing briefly forgets who he is talking to; he comes up with his hypothesis. Watson is hurt, causing Holmes to realize what he’s just done, and immediately apologizes.
That’s not hard to imagine happening for innocent reasons. One of my sisters recently did something similar; she brought up the fact that I know the area around a certain hospital very well because I spent a lot of time there when my son was dying, and was horrified when she realized what she’d just said.
I posit that Ned Stark would probably have been better off if King Robert Barathoen hadn’t been his best friend.
They joke about it a lot - House’s apartment is 221B, Wilson jokes about an “Irene Adler” at one point, etc. There’s a lot of nods if you know what to look for.
Exactly. While Emma has learned not to meddle and grown as a human being, she’s still a product of her class and times. She resisted Harriet marrying the nice young farmer because that would separate them class wise. There is no other girl in the area Emma wants to be friends with, so she selfishly pushes Harriet the wrong direction. Harriet was always a friend of convenience. Once Emma sees Jane Fairfax as someone she’d like to be friends with and Mr. Knightly proposes, Emma doesn’t need Harriet anymore. She doesn’t feel the need to push society by continuing the friendship with Harriet. Emma is first and foremost a Lady. She would never do anything unconventional, even for the sake of friendship. Especially a friendship as unbalanced as the one she had with Harriet.
There’s also Brutus, though that may not count as literature.
Ooo, what about Thomas Beckett & Henry? Do they count?