Jump to content

Episode 1.1, "A Study In Pink"


Undead Medic

What did you think of "A Study In Pink?"  

87 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Your Vote here:

    • 10/10 Excellent
    • 9/10 Not Quite The Best, But Not Far Off.
    • 8/10 Certainly Worth Watching Again.
    • 7/10 Slightly Above The Norm.
    • 6/10 Average.
      0
    • 5/10 Slightly Sub-Par.
      0
    • 4/10 Decidedly Below Average.
      0
    • 3/10 Pretty Poor.
      0
    • 2/10 Bad.
      0
    • 1/10 Terrible.
      0


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

I can understand that. But I see a huge difference between him being briefly but deeply unpleasant to someone who is never going to see him again, and a younger version of him having to deal with a large group of people being unpleasant to him day in day out for years. If he's living in halls and going to the same classes there's no escape. So yea, the idea of him being bullied, if he was, bothers me a lot more. 

So in your world no matter what he does or treats people it’s all good?  Personally I think you reap what you sow.  If you’re a dick to people why would they want to be friends with you?   I didn’t get bullying from the script direction though, just an obvious acknowledgement that the way Sherlock behaves would not make people eager to be friends with him and likely make him disliked which is basically how the adults in the Sherlock series treat Sherlock too.  Justifiably so because he brings it on himself.  I’ve got zero sympathy for it.  I’ll save my sympathy for the innocent people on the receiving end.

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

I think it's pretty common, actually, for people to empathize with the main character in a story. That's kind of the point in most stories, isn't it? For myself, I know I can't even watch/read a story unless I do ... why spend time with someone I don't feel some connection to? (It's hard enough spending time with people I DO feel a connection to! :D ) ...

At any rate, it doesn't preclude me from also having sympathy for other characters. But my loyalty is to Sherlock. So if I had to choose between one or the other, or defending one over another .... yep, pretty sure I'd choose Sherlock.

Why would you have to like a main character to find the character interesting?  I doubt people liked Walter White on Breaking Bad but that wasn’t the point of the show.  It’s considered by many including myself to be one of the most brilliant shows ever made and it’s not because the main character is likable or relatable.  Maybe he’s relatable if you’re a narcissistic meth cook but I’m guessing/hoping?! there aren’t many of those people in the world.

I also don’t see why liking a character should make you want to ignore his obvious character flaws and give everything he does a free pass or make excuses for it.  Isn’t there room for objective assessments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gerry said:

Why would you have to like a main character to find the character interesting? 

Not what I said. I said I need to feel a connection to the main character in order to find a story interesting. Or sometimes a secondary character will do, like Spock in Star Trek. I need to care what happens to him/her, or I don't see the point in watching. YMMV.

Quote

 

 I doubt people liked Walter White on Breaking Bad but that wasn’t the point of the show.  It’s considered by many including myself to be one of the most brilliant shows ever made and it’s not because the main character is likable or relatable.  Maybe he’s relatable if you’re a narcissistic meth cook but I’m guessing/hoping?! there aren’t many of those people in the world.

 

And that's exactly why I've never watched the show ... I can't relate to a narcissistic meth cook, and have no interest in spending time on him. Doesn't make it a bad show, just makes it something I, personally, have no interest in.

Quote

I also don’t see why liking a character should make you want to ignore his obvious character flaws and give everything he does a free pass or make excuses for it.  Isn’t there room for objective assessments?

Love is blind, I guess.

Sure, there's room for all kinds of assessments. Fortunately, they're not required.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt I would appreciate a real person behaving like Sherlock. Except if he was Sherlock and as I have said before, that's pretty impossible imo because although he feels incredibly real to me when I watch him on screen, I do not believe a person exactly like that could exist. He is fantastic to a degree. 

That's one reason why I think Sally Donovan was a good idea, she illustrates this point, that Sherlock Holmes, the hero we fans admire and whose cutting remarks people like me chuckle at would actually be a gigantic nuisance, especially if your boss just let him show up at your workplace all the time. 

It's hard to say whether Sherlock was a dick to people first and then they responded like Sally which made him defensive and even more unpleasant etc or whether he was originally a sweet kid who didn't go into dickhead mode until he was bullied / ridiculed by others. 

All I know is that I went through a similar process in school, and I couldn't tell you how it began or who started it but I relate to Sherlock because I remember navigating a world where I could only endure my peers and their incessant hostility by deciding they were all stupid - and acting accordingly. 

S1 Sherlock is quite immature, at least socially. But, for me, very fun to watch. 

Btw, I like how this whole "the bullied person strikes back" theme takes a sinister turn in S3 when he shoots Magnussen. 

Ah Sherlock. The show that finally addresses themes relevant to my own life experience. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I sometimes think about is the interaction with Dimmock; how Sherlock starts out friendly, goes to shake his hand, and has it pointedly ignored. Dimmock's obviously gone in deciding he's taking no sh*t, but Sherlock is actually pleasant until he gets shot down. It makes me wonder if he usually tries to be cordial with the people he works with but it often goes pear shaped. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Not what I said. I said I need to feel a connection to the main character in order to find a story interesting.

Have you ever disliked a character you feel a connection to?  Based on what you said I thought not which is why I think of the two concepts synomously.

Regarding characters like Donovan and Anderson, I have a hard time believing that kind of animosity towards Sherlock was ever unprovoked.  Most people don’t anyway.  Sherlock alluded to not many of the SY people being willing to work with Sherlock which would imply it’s his behavior that creates the animosity unless you believe it’s one big conspiracy against him.  I could easily see Sherlock insulting or disparaging their knowledge or competence which lead them to despise and distrust Sherlock. Or by deducing them personally in an insulting manner which he does often as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, T.o.b.y said:

 

All I know is that I went through a similar process in school, and I couldn't tell you how it began or who started it but I relate to Sherlock because I remember navigating a world where I could only endure my peers and their incessant hostility by deciding they were all stupid - and acting accordingly. 

......

Btw, I like how this whole "the bullied person strikes back" theme takes a sinister turn in S3 when he shoots Magnussen. 

Ah Sherlock. The show that finally addresses themes relevant to my own life experience. 

Holee sweet .... you SHOT one of your classmates!??!!!!?! *Arcadia resolves to tread more lightly around T.o.b.y from now on....*

:D 

4 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

Something I sometimes think about is the interaction with Dimmock; how Sherlock starts out friendly, goes to shake his hand, and has it pointedly ignored. Dimmock's obviously gone in deciding he's taking no sh*t, but Sherlock is actually pleasant until he gets shot down. It makes me wonder if he usually tries to be cordial with the people he works with but it often goes pear shaped. 

I've always been struck by how friendly he was to John when they met at 221B the first time. Charming, as John says in his blog. And then the way he greets Mrs. H.

Maybe Sherlock's problem isn't his manners, exactly, but that he "can't resist a touch of drama"; i.e., showing off. And then, as he says himself, most people just say "piss off."  Maybe most people just assume he's all air and fail to see the actual brilliance?

And I would say that Sally represents that category of people who disbelieves what she can't see for herself. She didn't put the clues together; therefore, no one can; therefore, Sherlock must be a fake. Whereas Lestrade sees that Sherlock gets results, and is less concerned about how.

I'm still convinced that the role for Hopkins in S4 was originally intended for Sally, though. So in my head, even Sally has finally come to appreciate Sherlock.
 Life is good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, another meeting where he makes a point of shaking his hand, being polite, friendly... he can't be horrible to everyone, Angelo loves him, Mrs H loves him. Maybe it's a case that he's good enough at what he does, and abrasive but not actually malicious, so the people he helps overlook the more snarky comments. Think of Henry from HOB, he'd probably sing Sherlock's praises after the case was finished despite the various things Sherlock might have said along the way.

I wonder about the chip guy, he says he helped him put up shelves, doesn't seem like a Sherlock thing to do. (I know it's actually for humour value, but I wonder about the in-world story).

The Hopkins scene is odd, it seems so pointless. It would make sense if it was actually written for Sally. 

I don't know why Lestrade lets Sally get away with calling Sherlock freak, personal insults to a consultant your boss invited on the case aren't really cool. Sherlock doesn't seem to care much, so putting his reaction aside, I just mean from a professional standpoint. If she was there representing herself then she can say what she wants, but she's there representing the Met. A cop going around calling people freak isn't exactly PC - it's the type of story a journalist like Kitty Riley would love to sensationalise. I can just imagine it on the front of the Daily Mail, painting Sherlock as a poor vulnerable little consultant helping out of the goodness of his heart, being bullied and belittled by the big mean cop. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think they don’t see his brilliance or is his affect that worries them/makes them think he’s a freak.  I think how much he enjoys it all so much is what makes them wonder if he isnt on the edge of being a criminal himself.  Given his murdering magnussen and his interactions with Adler and moriarty the thought may be justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

Yup, another meeting where he makes a point of shaking his hand, being polite, friendly... he can't be horrible to everyone, Angelo loves him, Mrs H loves him. Maybe it's a case that he's good enough at what he does, and abrasive but not actually malicious, so the people he helps overlook the more snarky comments. Think of Henry from HOB, he'd probably sing Sherlock's praises after the case was finished despite the various things Sherlock might have said along the way.

I wonder about the chip guy, he says he helped him put up shelves, doesn't seem like a Sherlock thing to do. (I know it's actually for humour value, but I wonder about the in-world story).

The Hopkins scene is odd, it seems so pointless. It would make sense if it was actually written for Sally. 

I don't know why Lestrade lets Sally get away with calling Sherlock freak, personal insults to a consultant your boss invited on the case aren't really cool. Sherlock doesn't seem to care much, so putting his reaction aside, I just mean from a professional standpoint. If she was there representing herself then she can say what she wants, but she's there representing the Met. A cop going around calling people freak isn't exactly PC - it's the type of story a journalist like Kitty Riley would love to sensationalise. I can just imagine it on the front of the Daily Mail, painting Sherlock as a poor vulnerable little consultant helping out of the goodness of his heart, being bullied and belittled by the big mean cop. 

Ah, but I don't think even Donovan is so full of brass to call DI Lestrade's favorite consultant 'Freak' in her boss's hearing.  Lestrade wasn't around when we first meet Donovan and her charming personality.  She says into the walkie that 'Freak' is on his way in, but it's not a given she's speaking to Lestrade.  She may be warning the rest of the forensics guys.  I don't think Lestrade is the type of boss who would dignify such schoolyard antics with an official reprimand, thusly giving them weight which they don't deserve, and Sherlock isn't going to tattle.  Donovan is pitching stones down a well, and if they are hitting their mark, Sherl's not going to let on to Lestrade or anybody else.  Greg is no doubt aware of the low esteem in which the civilian know-it-all is held by his squad, but he probably assumes what Sherlock wants everyone to assume:  SH is made of titanium and slights just bounce off.  Any reality to the contrary is in Sherl's most private room of the mind palace, not even shared with John.

Even SH is not immune to the lure of free chips.  He must have been really bored one Saturday and had an uncharacteristic burst of DIY spirit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always taken it that she's on the radio to Lestrade, since it's his crime scene and he's the one who called Sherlock in. I suppose it's possible it's someone else, but even so if she's calling him that so casually to other officers you'd think Lestrade would have gotten wind of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2018 at 6:23 PM, Pseudonym said:

John being delighted that everyone hated Sherlock is so sad. I don't think it was played that way either, which I'm glad of. 

Not sure what I make of that particular scene, but I do have the impression that John sometimes says things (especially in his blog) that he thinks are interesting or funny, without stopping to think that he might be embarrassing Sherlock -- with the prime example probably being that he didn't know that the earth goes around the sun.  Kind of ironic, when John is supposed to be the socially-astute one.

On 3/8/2018 at 5:20 AM, Pseudonym said:

Something else I always thought was a bit odd was the line where John asks Sally where he can get a taxi and says 'only... my leg.' John strikes me as the kind of bullheaded guy who would never draw attention to his weaknesses like that. It would have been better replaced with one of those MF looks that says he's thinking about his leg but isn't about to say it. 

I'd never thought of that, but you have a good point there.

The thing that always strikes me as peculiar about that scene is Sally's reply -- "Try the main road."  Well duh, bet John would never have thought of that!  How about telling him how to get to the main road, like take the second road on the left and you'll see it straight ahead?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, maybe. Perhaps she's thinking, 'you showed up with him, uninvited, seem to be on his side, and now he's left you. You've made your bed, now you have to lie in it.' 

Doesn't she nod in the direction of the main road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what that's worth, I believe she does.  But she presumably knows that John arrived by taxi, and may therefore have very little idea of where he is, so I'd think something a bit more explicit might be in order -- certainly more helpful than advising him to stay away from Sherlock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 1:13 PM, Pseudonym said:

I've always taken it that she's on the radio to Lestrade, since it's his crime scene and he's the one who called Sherlock in. I suppose it's possible it's someone else, but even so if she's calling him that so casually to other officers you'd think Lestrade would have gotten wind of it. 

If that's true . .and Lestrade is the senior officer in charge, so it's quite likely, then I will chalk up his laissez-faire attitude toward verbally abusive subordinates as being so rattled at being in charge of multiple crime scenes with dead bodies that he let it slide, having bigger fish to fry.  He does value Donovan as an officer, based on his reaction to her theory of SH as the child abductor in TRF.  There's only one mention of Donovan at the top of TEH, but we never see her again.  Perhaps DI Lestrade arranged a transfer (with a promotion) to another unit for this smart but very caustic officer.  He found her a DI slot available in Newcastle, which gave her the career props she wanted but was far, far away from London and him. 

Sherlock does go around telling people that he's a high-functioning sociopath, so he would wear 'Freak' like a BA badge of honor.  But I am surprised that Lestrade would tolerate that kind of epithet from one of his officers.  SH is a civilian, and Sally's attitude is not very flattering to the perception of the police, even if this civilian is a singular one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2018 at 7:19 AM, gerry said:

Have you ever disliked a character you feel a connection to?  Based on what you said I thought not which is why I think of the two concepts synomously.

 

Someone mentioned Walter White above.  For me, I didn't like Walter, but I felt a connection to him because every dumb a$$ thing he did was a response to life kicking him while he was down, repeatedly and without mercy.  

On 3/9/2018 at 9:29 AM, gerry said:

Do you think they don’t see his brilliance or is his affect that worries them/makes them think he’s a freak.  I think how much he enjoys it all so much is what makes them wonder if he isnt on the edge of being a criminal himself.  

I think intelligence alone is enough to make many people hate you.  I spent my entire K-12 existence being called every synonym of "freak" that you can imagine. It took me until senior year in HS to get to the point where I was starting to feel that being myself, even if that earned me derision, was more important than trying to please everyone. Before that, I did everything I could think of to try to get people to like me; I even ordered a book about making friends and tried to employ the strategies, only to have not just kids, but *parents* say that there must be something wrong with me because of my intelligence. (Parents even told my own parents they were glad their children weren't intelligent like me.) And I promise, I didn't flaunt it about and I didn't do anything profoundly strange; just the normal day-to-day interactions and my grasp of information and nuance in class were enough to make plain exactly how I was different.

For that reason, I give Sherlock a lot of room for his behavior, because if he went through something like I did, it makes for an interesting place to be as an adult. On the one hand, you want to protect yourself by appearing to enjoy exactly what makes you different - as long as people are going to think you are only useful as a party trick, might as well embrace it and use it to keep people who can hurt you at bay. On the other hand, the desire for human contact is still there, and every interaction brings the hope that you might find someone who accepts you as you are.  I found my "John" in college (no Johnlock implied here :lol2:), and I was simply terrified that I would do something to drive her away, because she was functionally my first best friend.  She was the one who would say "amazing" when everyone else said "p*ss off."

Even before we found out about Sherlock's childhood in S4 (and man, I'm still trying to make sense of all that from a character standpoint), I think the fact of his brilliance alone is enough to explain quite a bit of his behavior and give him some leeway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boton said:

I think intelligence alone is enough to make many people hate you.  I spent my entire K-12 existence being called every synonym of "freak" that you can imagine. It took me until senior year in HS to get to the point where I was starting to feel that being myself, even if that earned me derision, was more important than trying to please everyone. .

My own childhood took place some years before yours, and in a very small rural town. Oddly enough, I wasn't treated with such open hostility (possibly because the school was so small that we all knew each other as individuals).  The only "names" I recall were "Brain" and "IBM" ( which I chose to take as compliments :D ).

Nevertheless, I think being a smart girl was considered way more abnormal than being a smart boy (though some of the males among my fellow "brains" might disagree).  I remember an article (which I must have mentioned already) in a magazine that the school handed out to home-ec students, saying that you shouldn't let on that you're *too* smart or the boys won't like you.  That may explain why I had so few dates, but I couldn't bring myself to play dumb, because that would have been equivalent to lying, and therefore morally unacceptable.  Or maybe that's just how I justified being a show-off.  :P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol2: Oh my god, imagine if a school handed out something like that today!

I doubt that other kids had a problem with Sherlock's intelligence, it was probably more the way in which he expressed it... If his adult behavior is anything to go by. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

you shouldn't let on that you're *too* smart or the boys won't like you.  That may explain why I had so few dates, but I couldn't bring myself to play dumb, because that would have been equivalent to lying, and therefore morally unacceptable.  Or maybe that's just how I justified being a show-off.  :P

Yeah, I was said it too. I answered that I'm not going to play dumb only to secure the genetic line (which is quite crappy, judging by my family members). BTW, that statement is, as far as I remember, founded on research. And it's not a surprise to me - which man want a partner who always know better? :P  And it's not boys not liking you. It's them not seeing you as a potential mating material.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, J.P. said:

Yeah, I was said it too. I answered that I'm not going to play dumb only to secure the genetic line (which is quite crappy, judging by my family members). BTW, that statement is, as far as I remember, founded on research. And it's not a surprise to me - which man want a partner who always know better? :P  And it's not boys not liking you. It's them not seeing you as a potential mating material.

I agree with this.  Men tend to marry "up" in terms of youth and attractiveness and "down" in terms of intelligence and socioeconomic status, while women do the reverse. I can't blame anyone for this; I think it's partially natural.

I'm glad to hear that many of you didn't take quite the beating I did in school over intelligence; at least there must have been a few sane school districts out there!  In any event, my experience doesn't have to map onto Sherlock in canon. It is just my own way of identifying with him, just like those with ASD often see him as on the spectrum and those who are asexual see him that way too. Sherlock is an interesting mirror in which to see ourselves and have ourselves validated, which is a pretty cool feat for a fictional character.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I was a bit blind, but I have the impression that in my youth being smart made you  into an elite. We've had all the same ugly overcoats, there was not much to show off in the equally distributed shortage of everything. Western made markers, or Chinese pencil-cases, or perfumed erasers were the most of the luxury you could have. Your brain seemed to be your main asset. :D

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you grew up in quite a different world. :( If I had gotten to pick, I think I'd have chosen to remain something of a misfit in a comfortable environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Boton said:

I agree with this.  Men tend to marry "up" in terms of youth and attractiveness and "down" in terms of intelligence and socioeconomic status, while women do the reverse. I can't blame anyone for this; I think it's partially natural.

I'm glad to hear that many of you didn't take quite the beating I did in school over intelligence; at least there must have been a few sane school districts out there!  In any event, my experience doesn't have to map onto Sherlock in canon. It is just my own way of identifying with him, just like those with ASD often see him as on the spectrum and those who are asexual see him that way too. Sherlock is an interesting mirror in which to see ourselves and have ourselves validated, which is a pretty cool feat for a fictional character.

Boton is correct in observing the longstanding social phenomenon re. mating, but it sure isn't flattering about the human race, is it?  She's poshed up her language but essentially men are looking for a hot, young lay, no matter how ignorant or poor she is and women will hold their nose and put up with any old goat, so long as he's got money.  It goes without saying that he will remind her often, if not several times daily that his is her intellectual and economic superior.

Is it down to the fragility of the male ego, do you suppose?  Men are so intimidated by a woman who knows some big words they don't or who makes more money that it's a boner-killer? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically, I think the older-husband-younger-wife tradition is based on two factors:

1. Families needed to be large to offset high infant mortality rates, and there was no advanced medical technology to support women in their forties through successful pregnancies.  So the wife needed to be at the beginning of her prime child-bearing years, say late teens.

2.  The husband needed to have the wherewithall to support a family financially.  In general, this meant he needed to be well established in his trade, say in his thirties.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Sounds like you grew up in quite a different world. :( If I had gotten to pick, I think I'd have chosen to remain something of a misfit in a comfortable environment.

I deduce (;)) that J.P. grew up in a socialist country during the cold war. Am I right, J.P.? DDR, perhaps? 

Being intelligent didn't get you into trouble with your peers when I was a kid, as long as you were naturally brilliant and didn't put any effort into your school work. I am not very gifted and had to work very hard to get the same results as the bright people and it was that which earned me the reputation of being seriously uncool. (Among other things). 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 49 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.