Slithytove

I agree with Benedict that it should be Turing doing the pardoning, not vice versa. Of course, it all comes far too late for Turing himself but a royal pardon is better than nothing, I suppose

Ah.....there we differ, as I think Sherlock does feel ousted by Mary but is sublimating his feelings by trying to share John's love for her. A bit like a child trying to overcome their jealousy towards the new baby by sharing in its care, almost trying to take on the role of another parent. (I may have mentioned this theory before!). Sherlock loves John, John loves Mary, Mary loves John, so Sherlock tries to love Mary too. You do get a different perspective if you think Sherlock is straight or gay (or possibly bisexual.). I never felt a moment's animosity towards Janine, for instance, as I never took her seriously as a girlfriend. As Sherlock himself says, girlfriends are not his area. Boyfriends, on the other hand......I do think that that is a possibility. I think he might see himself as the third (platonic) partner in the Watsons's marriage, as evidenced by the wedding photo, but I think the emotional attachment is to John, not Mary. Maybe that is why he is jealous of Sholto - not because of any former romantic relationship between John and Sholto (the fanfics have explored this idea, but it seems unlikely) but because he doesn't like to think that John has had a previous strong connection with another (bossy!) man. Johnlock isn't canon, of course, and never will be, but the show is written in a way that allows that type of interpretation and, for those of us who see the characters in that light, it can work.

I wasn't keen on Sholto either but, as you say, some of ACD's minor characters tended towards the cardboard cut-out type as well, so maybe we can excuse him for being a bit one-dimensional. I hadn't questioned Sherlock's jealousy but you're right, it is a bit out of character. Maybe he is feeling a bit vulnerable, as he is now in the situation where he seems to need John more than John needs him. Or maybe the clue is in the slip about "your former commander." Perhaps Sherlock doesn't mind John's friendship with non- threatening people like Stamford but gets jealous at the appearance of another alpha male. In other words, Sherlock wants to be the bossy one in their relationship and doesn't like the idea that John has ever had a similar connection to someone else.

Indeed. I love that. On that note, I watched HLV again yesterday and noticed that when Sherlock wakes up after his operation, and the music goes really loud, we can hear him whispering, "Mary." I didn't notice that before (maybe I need to get my ears checked... but that's another matter ). I really like that detail. Not sure why. But anyway, it goes well with John's words, "His first word when he woke up? Mary." His Last Vow has grown on me yet again. I suppose it has to do with getting used to a different setting; John being married, Sherlock being the protector, the uncovering of Mary's past. There is decidedly more character drama in this episode than in any other, the way I see it. Things are changing, and it takes some getting used to, but now that I apparently am, I enjoy the episode as it is. This does not mean I would have taken the show in that direction myself, but I'm not unhappy with it. It's a great story. I find it strange, though, to have such a new experience of it more than 3 months and 9 viewings later. Oh, there are still little things that bug me... but they have become small(er) in the greater context. It occurred to me just why I believe they have brought in Sherlock the boy at the moment when Sherlock cries after having killed Magnussen. If Sherlock was only crying because of the loss of his future, why not just have Sherlock the adult cry? I personally can only explain it this way: Sherlock the boy represents innocence. So when he is shown at this critical moment, crying after having murdered a man, it emphasises the loss of innocence. Mycroft's words further emphasise this: "Oh, Sherlock. What have you done?" I'm not saying he's not crying about his future as well - he very well could be - but I firmly believe there is more to it than that, or they would not have brought in young Sherlock. That makes sense. Sherlock could certainly be crying because of the horror of what he has done, even if he felt he had to do it. CAM could well be the only person he has killed. We know he has been on the receiving end of some brutal treatment during the hiatus, and probably had to do some illegal and possibly violent things himself, but we don't know that he has ever taken a life. Committing murder could be a terrible loss of innocence. Do you think it is Mycroft who sees Sherlock as a frightened child or is it the way Sherlock sees himself? Or both? It does look as if Mycroft, in the helicopter, is seeing him as his little brother in trouble. On the other hand, Sherlock did see himself as a child when he was dying. It is interesting that, in that scene, his big brother who was threatening him with parental anger was still seen as an adult whereas Sherlock was a little boy. Maybe Sherlock, deep inside, sees Mycroft as a grown-up whilst he is still the vulnerable child whom they "both thought was an idiot.". It would explain why he sees himself as a weeping child as Mycroft comes swooping in to rescue/punish him. It might also account for some of that simmering resentment he obviously feels towards his brother.....

Oh, good heavens -- maybe that's why I like this show so much! (I'm serious!) I'm pretty sure that's one of the many reasons I do! Yeah, I think it's pretty much a package deal. There are other shows where everybody's weird (I hate Seinfeld) and other shows written by some of the same people (Doctor Who doesn't grab me these days) and there's even a movie with the two stars of Sherlock (and here's where my examples kinda break down, because the scene with the two of them was the best part of Desolation of Smaug -- of course it's also just about the only part recognizably taken from the book, so I suppose we could chalk part of it up to Tolkien's writing). Hmm -- well, in the first case he's trying to impress John, while in the second case, he's trying to impress Mycroft. So he's playing to the audience. How's that? Possible....but it was Sherlock's "inner Mycroft", which is a personification of an aspect of himself. I am also not sure he was trying to impress John in the lab, as the latter seemed baffled by the whole thing and couldn't grasp the significance of the bunny...

The inconsistency to which I was referring (several pages ago!) was Sherlock's attitude to coincidence. In THoB, he says something to the effect that the world must be boring for people who don't believe in coincidence, when he realises that Dr Stapleton is the mum of the little girl whose rabbit disappeared. However, in TSoT, he says of coincidence "the universe is rarely that lazy", whilst trying to deduce the case of the Mayfly Man. So he did believe in coincidence, but now he doesn't. That is what makes it hard to analyse the characters because there are times when they seem to do or say things purely for the purpose of the plot, regardless of whether it is inconsistent or out of character. That, I think, is why things occasionally jar and you find yourself thinking, "But he wouldn't do that!". Doesn't happen often but, when it does, it makes the characters more difficult to understand.

I don't think that Sherlock's seeming attraction to highly dangerous people, such as Jim, precludes him having friendships with normal people like Lestrade, Mrs Hudson, Molly, etc. He just tends to be ruder to normal people, maybe because he knows they will forgive him or maybe because he has a very low boredom threshold. I agree that one reason why he finds CAM less fascinating is the lack of a puzzle to solve. However, he also seems to have a particular grudge against CAM which isn't fully explained - are we supposed to assume that he classifies himself amongst the "different" people who are preyed on by the likes of CAM? I do think there is something masochistic about Sherlock's attitude towards those who hurt him - Jim, Irene and Mary in particular, though he does seem to like Janine better when she gets back at him with her kiss-and-tell stories - compared to his rather arrogant dominance over people like Molly and Lestrade, who defer to him. However, I realise that this will not be a popular interpretation. It isn't a quality present in ACD's Holmes but my personal opinion is that Sherlock has a strange reaction to people who do him harm. John is, I think, a character of dark and light, much more so than the original Watson. The writers seemed wedded to this idea from the very beginning, as it starts to be suggested right back to ASiP. Maybe Sherlock finds in John the perfect balance of normality and danger, and that's why he likes him so much. There are, of course, many ways to interpret the characters, not only because we all see them a little differently but also because consistency isn't a hallmark of this show. One glaring example is Sherlock's acceptance of coincidence in THoB and his rejection of it in TSoT. (Make your mind up, Sherlock!). I think we are probably trying to make sense of personality traits which the writers haven't really worked out themselves.

Sherlock's values are very peculiar. He is drawn to Irene - intellectually, physically or both - who exploits and humiliates him much more than he is to Molly, who loves him and would do anything for him. Obviously, it may be that he is sexually attracted to Irene and not to Molly, but he seems to treat the former with wary respect and affection whereas most of the time he is barely civil to the latter. TEH is the only time when he is nice to her for a prolonged period of time, and that might simply be because he needs someone else in his life when John is out of the picture. Similarly, he seems to have a love-hate relationship with Jim, an incredibly dangerous psychopath who excites Sherlock with his ingenuity and intelligence. Of course, Sherlock finds him less delightful when it is John in the Semtex vest, and appears to be angry and distressed by him in TRF (but who knows now what was real and what was fake in TRF?). The fact remains, though, that he did find Jim thrilling - as compared, for instance, to John's gut reaction of horror and disgust, which was a more normal reaction to an insane murderer - and even in TRF there are moments when they still seem fascinated by one another. There seems to be something in Sherlock that is drawn to darkness. Would he ever have got so close to John if it had not been for the shooting of the cabbie? He sees a dark side in John, a love of danger and violence, even if John doesn't see it in himself. Maybe it was not John who subconsciously chose Mary because she is dangerous but Sherlock. I don't think we can base an assessment of a person's character on Sherlock's opinion. Most of us wouldn't consider the Camden Garrotter to be the best man they ever knew, regardless of his charity work.

Maybe Sherlock has an ulterior motive for gaining and keeping her friendship.....If the explanation of TRF is genuine, the Holmes brothers play a long game involving a great deal of duplicity, including a lot of (rather cruel) lying to poor John. I wouldn't put it past them to keep Mary in John's life if she is a baddie, as long as Sherlock is certain that John is not the target. (I'm not entirely sure that Mycroft would care.) I don't really expect S4 to play out like this - I expect Mary to turn out to have a tragic past that supposedly justifies her crimes, and maybe to sacrifice herself to save someone else's life, thus supposedly redeeming herself - but I would like it to all be a cunning plan.....

Even if it made no sense to Mary, it was in her interests to agree. She wasn't likely to say "Surgical precision? Rubbish. Actually, I was aiming for his heart....". No wonder she accepted the excuse, however ridiculous, when it was offered.

Or to John. (Married, that is.)

I suppose you're right. I just thought it was quite funny. I assumed they were in an amateur version which included line dancing. I can picture them in their cowboy boots..... If Mummy & Daddy do get over to Oklahoma regularly, you'd think they would also be able to travel to London more often, particularly as both their sons live there. Evidently they don't visit often, as they were describing the usual sightseeing tour when they were at Sherlock's flat.

That's why I thought it was a joke. I thought we were supposed to assume he was referring to the state, and then the punch line reveals that he is talking about dancing, hence the musical. After all, we know they like musicals. Mycroft has to take them to see Les Mis.

As far as plot developments are concerned, I think that Mary shooting Sherlock was very dramatic. I just didn't like the way they wrote John's character after that. Sherlock's attitude to Mary is definitely odd - he literally lets her get away with murder. I am hoping it will all be a facade and that the real reasons for his behaviour will be revealed in S4. Probably not, but these writers have very convoluted minds. Maybe they will surprise us.

Thank you. I know it is hard for the people caught up in the excitement of moving to understand what it feels like for those left behind. I am dreading the day they leave, even though I know it will take a while for them to sort out their relocation details and their visas, etc. I'm sure your family must be glad you moved back, Carol. I hope the same will happen with my daughter, and hopefully the grandkids too (though our 18 year old grandson keeps saying he wants to become an American citizen as soon as possible.). Your suggestion about the phones is a good one. We'll look round and see if we can find a deal. People also say Skype is good. I am not clever with computers, nor is my husband, but our younger daughter is pretty good with technology so I hope she'll be able to sort out any problems. Thank God for the distractions of Sherlock....

Thank you, all of you. You are very kind. My son-in-law has been offered a very good job in Madison, Wisconsin. They have been to look around and say it is a nice place and the people seem very friendly, which is true, I'm sure - but it is more than 3,000 miles away from us. They've never lived further away than a 15 minute drive. I am trying to be happy for them because it is a big opportunity and they are all very excited, but it's very hard. I know I am lucky to have my other daughter, who lives with us and her husband and their two darling little girls, but I am still going to miss them so much. I can't help feeling as if they'll be so far away, it will be as if they are dead. Everyone keeps telling me that that's silly, because there is the phone, and Skype and we can visit - though not very often, in my opinion, as it's very expensive and my husband and I will soon be pensioners - and I keep agreeing but, in my heart, I still feel like we're losing them. Sorry. You see why I waste so much time thinking about silly things like Sherlock!

Regarding the line dancing, I thought it was a joke about them being in the musical of Oklahoma rather than the state.

Don't get me wrong, Holmes was always my favourite character - ditto Sherlock. One of the greatest literary characters of all time - maybe, in fact, the greatest. I just loved Dr Watson too. So kind, noble and faithful. A bit like a really nice dog, in fact. As for John letting Sherlock down, you can be loyal but still have a mind and morals of your own. If Sherlock says Mary didn't shoot to kill, John can still say, "Rubbish, I'm an army doctor, I've dealt with trauma, I know the damage caused by a gunshot wound." Sherlock can say "You can trust her" but John can still say, "Well, I don't.". That wouldn't be disloyal, it would be common sense. What feels like letting Sherlock down is not having that deep bond which says, " I don't care what excuses she makes, or you make for her, she hurt you - I nearly lost you, forever this time - and I can't get past that.". That's what I wanted him to say, not to go on about the problems of her past and her future, as if he'd just found out that she used to be a stripper, or had been caught kissing the milkman, or something.....

Oh, is that what we call it? For me, it is a major distraction from real life. The older of our two daughters and her husband are relocating to the US, taking four of our six grandkids with them. At the moment, they're in the process of applying for visas. I'm putting on a brave face but I'm dying inside. Reading Sherlock fanfic and joining in the discussions on these forums provides a welcome distraction, so I'm not thinking constantly about my family going away. It has helped to save my sanity, such as it is...

I have always tended to put Dr Watson on a pedestal, right back to when I first read the stories as a kid. I adore Sherlock Holmes in both his original and current incarnations - the intelligence, the cynicism, the arrogance, the wit - but there is something deeply comforting about Watson. He is the epitome of the Victorian gentleman who maybe never existed but ought to have done - loyal, brave, kind and competent. What's not to love? Of course, modern John is spikier than ACD's Watson, just as Sherlock is much ruder than Holmes. They live in different centuries, after all. Still, I see John as a man who is fundamentally good. Yes, he might do things that were illegal, such as shooting the cabbie or chinning the Chief Superintendent , but he did them out of loyalty to Sherlock. I suppose this is why I feel a bit let- down by John in S3, particularly in HLV. As Zain points out, he had had previous minor lapses in the past, but then he is only human. In S3, he seems different. Sherlock still sees him as the moral centre of Sherlock's world - "You keep me right" - but is he? After HLV, I seriously doubt it.

But Jim wasn't trespassing. Presumably he bought a ticket to the Tower of London and paid to see the Jewels. The judge says he will get a long custodial sentence, if found guilty - but guilty of what?

I think that the authorities would want to punish Jim very severely to make an example of him - to show you don't play with our national treasures - but they would be constrained by the legal definition of the crimes committed. What was Jim actually guilty of, except assault and criminal damage? Much as they might want to throw the book at him, they couldn't charge him with robbery if he hadn't actually committed a theft.

I'm hoping for the opposite - that there are more series lined up, and that they get on with it as soon as possible. (I can't wait forever - I'm old!). I know that shows sometimes dip in quality after several series, but it isn't inevitable when the people involved have talent, imagination and a passion for their subject. I think there is still a huge amount of unexplored potential in these very strong and complex characters.

Interesting point, so exactly what was he charged with? I think it must have been a charge of attempted robbery, but I don't think they could have convicted him because he didn't try to remove the Jewels. He just wore them. Presumably they could have done him for criminal damage and for assault on the guard, whom he knocked out with the spray, but I don't think they could have locked him up for very long on those grounds.

Just watched TRF for the God-knows-how-many time, and a question occurred to me. Moriarty is tried at the Old Bailey, in the "trial of the century ", for attempting to steal the Crown Jewels. The judge warns that, if found guilty, he will face a long custodial sentence. But is he guilty? He breaks the display case and dresses up in the Jewels but he never attempts to remove them from the premises. As I understand it, you have only committed a theft if you deprive, or try to deprive, the owner of their property. Moriarty does not make off with the Jewels. Surely he couldn't be charged with robbery, or even attempted robbery. Criminal damage, certainly, but not enough to warrant the trial of the century.