Slithytove

I have to admit that I don't mind Sherlock being the centre of everything. John is adorable, of course, and their relationship is at the heart of the stories, and Lestrade, Molly and Hudders are great, but Sherlock....Sherlock is something else. I thought THoB was one of the most far fetched episodes (pressure pads in the ground producing hallucinogenic gas?), but so was the original (frightened to death by gigantic phosphorescent dog?). I did enjoy it, though - particularly the OTT beginning and Sherlock's breakdown in the pub. I thought John's discovery of "dogging" on the Moor was funny, and Lestrade's appearance was brief but lovely. And it was this episode, of course, that introduced us to the Mind Palace.

So hard to choose.....I finally went with the pool scene, the breakdown in the pub, the rooftop scene with John, the best man's speech and, finally, Sherlock fights back to life for John. Could have chosen so many others as well!

I've always hoped Mary would turn out to be one of Moriarty's snipers - preferably one of those involved in the Great Game. If the first time she saw John was when she had him in her sights at the pool.....Well, I would like that, but it's probably wishful thinking because I want Mary to be the next Big Bad (or, at least, working for the Big Bad......) The original Moran was a crack shot but Moftiss rather wasted that character in TEH, so I would like Mary to turn out to be some version of Jim's Moran. Doubt that she will be, though. A connection between Moriarty and Magnussen is interesting, though a long way from canon. (Not that that really bothers the writers too much.) Hard to imagine those two massive egos co-operating - they would be even more competitive than Sherlock and Mycroft - but it is possible. To revert briefly to "the other one"...,,Chekov said that if you show a knife in Act One, you had better use it by Act Three ( or words to that effect.). Surely "the other one" must show up in S4.

Rather a late reply but I have only just noticed this topic. I am afraid I haven't really noticed Americans playing baddies in British productions but I have noticed the reverse, probably because we all have our own cultural bias. I'd like to point out that, when a British actor is cast as a villain, it is usually someone with an upper class accent. Benedict himself, as Khan, is a prime example but there is also Alan Rickman in Robin Hood, Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List, Jeremy Irons (he was even the evil lion in the Lion King!), Peter Cushing in Star Wars....Terence Stamp, who comes from a less privileged background, did play General Zog in a Superman film but I suspect he did it in a posh accent. I think Robert Carlyle has played a few Hollywood villains too, but I don't know if he used his strong Glaswegian accent when playing those roles. So, in general, I would say it isn't enough to be British to be a bad guy. You really need to be British and posh.

I don't want everything in the psyches of the Holmes brothers to be explained, though it seems there is little danger of that happening anyway, as the writers seem to have a positive aversion to backstory. I just find it a bit odd that Mummy & Daddy seem so openly warm and nice, whilst both their sons are cold (outwardly, anyway) and difficult. Can't help wondering why.... Regarding "the other one", doesn't Mycroft mention him/her in the context of his lack of "brotherly compassion? In which case, it surely has to be a sibling. Somehow I doubt that it will really turn out to be Jim. On the subject of siblings, what is happening with Harry Watson? Why didn't the writers introduce her to us at John's wedding? They could easily have had her as a minor character, either struggling with sobriety or still an alcoholic. (Would Sherlock, with his own experience of addiction, be understanding or would he be his usual abrasive self?) I do wonder if they are keeping her up their sleeve, to give her character a role in some future episode. Or maybe not.

Not at all! You express yourself very clearly. I think your explanation is the only one that makes sense. The public have to have been exposed to more stories about Jim, presumably during the hiatus, otherwise why would they care? Maybe it was part of Mycroft's strategy to clear Sherlock's name prior to his return. If the brothers planned to let Jim destroy Sherlock's reputation, presumably they also planned how they would rebuild it. So the public know enough about Jim to be scared of him.....because Mycroft planned it? because Jim planned it?....and Jim is now either exploiting the bad publicity or deliberately set it up for reasons of his own? Could be either, I suppose, though Jim originally preferred to stay distant and hidden. ("No- one ever gets to me and no-one ever will.") In fact, when you think about it, it is strange that he came up with a plan that put him in the spotlight of a headline-making trial.

If we are explaining how we voted: Explanations - Yay! Don't think the "official" explanation made things clearer - rathe the opposite - but I enjoyed them, particularly the nods towards the fan theories. Mycroft -Yay! It was dramatic and seemed like something Mycroft would do - a rescue, but without warmth or heart. Surprise - Yay! What's not to love? Funny, with a layer of sadness. Stag night - Yay! I don't mind Sherlock having a human side, as long a he retains his essential snottiness the rest of the time. The invisible knife - Nay! Stabbing someone hours ago, without them noticing? Far fetched even for Sherlock. Mary - Yay! Sweet, lovely and understanding. Airfield - Nay! Cold and depressing. Oh, John, you can do better than this.... Moriarty - Yay! Sorry, I don't care if he has come back miraculously from the dead. He's my kind of psychopath. Mary - Nay! Not because she's bad but because it feels as if we are still supposed to like her. And because of what the storyline does to John's character. And yet, in spite of the above, I thought HLV was brilliant - mainly for the Mind Palace scenes.

Half the fun of being a fan of a show like Sherlock - and of ACD's novels, of course - is pondering all the questions raised and coming up with hypothetical answers. Inevitably, in the course of all this thinking, all sorts of apparent plot holes are revealed. (I suppose that, from Moftiss's viewpoint, it is a bit aggravating - not unlike Anderson's response to Sherlock's explanation of the Fall.) I do think that it's reasonable to wonder why the general public would be concerned if Jim popped up on every screen (besides wondering what the hell was wrong with their tvs.). He might be recognisable from his trial or from the Richard Brook part of Sherlock's supposed suicide, but I don't see why anyone not directly involved with him would be unduly worried by the sight of his face. After all, being the hidden centre of an evil empire was supposed to be the point of being a consulting criminal, wasn't it?

I think the problem with plotting is that we try to come up with something relatively logical, whereas Moftiss happily invents storylines which are crazy, have gaping plot holes but have loads of drama.....so it is very hard to predict where they're going to go. The only thing that seems certain is that "the other one" will have to appear at some point. It is like when the characters in a soap opera start discussing a family member whom they've never mentioned before. You can be sure they'll arrive in the next episode. Having Sherlock and Mycroft deduce their dad's misdemeanours is more dramatic, but I incline to the childhood theory on the grounds that being hurt when you are very young has a greater long-term impact on your personality. There has to be something - one repressed, anti-social child might be just be an oddity, but two? As for the sort of childhood that could produce someone like Jim, it hardly bears thinking about.

Re. the riot issue (again, briefly), I think Mycroft's remark only makes sense in the context of prison riots. And can't you imagine Sherlock causing endless disruption in any enclosed space? You could put him in a monastery and the other monks would want to kill him after a day or two. Betrayal would certainly be another source of pain, particularly when seen through the eyes of a small child. If, as suggested, Daddy Holmes cheated on Mummy and they came close to divorce, that would explain Sherlock's ambivalence over relationships - love is a weakness, it's a defect, it's vicious.....but he can't bear people he loves to break up (even when their marriage is based on lies.) If Daddy had a second family with a Ms Moriarty but chose to stay with Mummy and his legitimate sons, that might explain both Jim's general rage against the world and his particular obsession with the Holmes brothers. But why target Sherlock more than Mycroft? Maybe Daddy chose to stay with Mummy because she was pregnant with her second child? So Sherlock would be very upset by the idea that John and Mary might break up whilst she is pregnant..... Like Zain, I'm hoping Sherlock's arguments on behalf of Mary are all part of a cunning plan, but I'm not holding my breath as I think we are all expected to go on liking her, despite her actions. I do think, though, we might get more revelations regarding Mummy & Daddy. Could they really be so picture-perfect but raise two such emotionally damaged children? (You can see why, prior to S3, nearly all the fanfic writers imagined parents who were physically absent, emotionally distant or even cruel, particularly to Sherlock when he was little.) And "the other one" has to be featured now he or she has been mentioned and that must mean delving a little deeper into the family's past. Or maybe not. I find future plots incredibly hard to predict!

Well.....no-one can say that a riot would never happen (particularly when we are talking about a fictional character who, even in the less far-fetched stories, requires a pretty large suspension of disbelief.) I am just saying that, based on my own youthful experiences of going on political demonstrations plus my memories of coverage of events which have sparked trouble in the past, that I seriously doubt that the government would be at all worried about the public arrest of someone like Sherlock, particularly if it was proved he had murdered someone. We would be shocked and saddened, but unlikely to riot over someone proven to have shot another man (however unpleasant) through the head. As for Mycroft.....I think the similarity between himself and Jim Moriarty might extend to their formative experiences. Mycroft's "Everyone dies. All hearts are broken" is a more elegant version of Jim's scream of "That's what people do!" It would be interesting to know, not only if Mycroft had suffered a loss at some point, but if Jim had also been hurt by someone's death, maybe when he was very young. Mycroft would try to protect himself from future pain by controlling himself and those around him, whereas Jim's response would be to seek revenge against the entire world. The evident tension in the Holmes brothers relationship has never really been explained, although the fanfic writers have made plenty of attempts. There is a story on archiveofourown.org by iwantthatcoat which suggests that Mycroft, as a child/teenager, was sexually abusive towards his much younger brother, and that he was now in denial about it whilst Sherlock had blotted the details from his memory but retained a sense of unease, particularly regarding sexual relationships. This is obviously a controversial idea but works pretty well to explain Sherlock's spiky reactions to his brother and Mycroft's rather creepy, possessive interest in Sherlock's life. Can't see it ever becoming canon, though!

Yes, I do remember the 2011 riots - most of us were gobsmacked by the tv footage. Mark Duggan, whose death was the catalyst, was shot by the police because they thought (wrongly, it seems) that he had a gun. The local people were angered by the police shooting of a young black man, which they felt was unjustified. Duggan's family fiercely deny that he was a drug dealer or involved with gangs. However, I doubt that many of those who got involved as the riots spread had ever heard of Duggan. (We had a small copycat riot here in Leicester, and it wasn't motivated by justice for Mark Duggan). Maybe it was just bored kids caught up in the excitement, or maybe it was high youth employment and cuts in welfare benefits that meant there was an underclass of youngsters with no jobs, little money and a lot of anger. Try as I might, I can't think of an instance when the English rose up in defence of a vigilante, which is how Sherlock might be viewed if he was able to explain that he had killed CAM to rid the world of a dangerous, unscrupulous man. I suspect that the best he could hope for is a petition to Downing Street and some strongly-worded letters to the newspapers..... Mycroft is an interesting character and I like the fact that we don't have our arms twisted to like or understand him, though we can see that there is care and concern for his brother underneath the carefully calculated coldness. I would like to know why he irritates Sherlock so much - is it just sibling rivalry? - and why he seems so desperate to keep people at arms-length and frequently advises his brother to do the same.

Yes, despite all the supposed similarities between Sherlock and Jim, there are echoes of Mycroft too. Hidden, detached,, "no-one gets to me and no-one ever will"....

Oh, sure, sometimes riots do break out here, though I'd say that the time when Charlie & Camilla's car was targeted was more of an out of control demo than a proper riot..... But they are fairly rare and hugely shocking to the average citizen, and they are invariably political, e.g. the poll tax, the G8 summit and (maybe the most frequent reason) the feeling that the police are picking on a particular racial group. We really aren't such a collection of repressed, stiff-upper-lipped individuals as we are perceived, and the journalist who said the English are actually a nation of freebooters might have had a point....but, sadly, I don't think we would riot over the imprisonment of a man who had shot another (unarmed) man through the head, even if the former was popular and the latter wasn't. Sadly. You do have a point that Mycroft probably has a history of involvement in MI6 and CIA black ops and is somewhat hypocritical, therefore, to call Sherlock a murderer (even though he is.). Presumably the difference is that Mycroft is too self-controlled to kill someone himself and to do it in front of witnesses.

I agree that Mycroft is trying to save Sherlock, by giving him a mission where there is a chance of survival, albeit a slim one. Prison would surely have killed him - he would either have provoked one or more of the other prisoners into murdering him or he would kill himself because he could not stand the boredom. I think Mycroft's reasons for not imprisoning his brother are little more than excuses. However, as excuses go, I think it is more likely that he was referring to prison riots, rather than riots in the streets. We are not a nation much given to rioting (although it does happen occasionally) and I doubt we would rise up to demand the release of a murderer, however famous or popular he might be......

I know lots of people aren't happy about Jim popping up again, but I could have kissed him when it became apparent that the plane would return because of him. The airfield farewell left me feeling depressed. Partly, of course, because Sherlock was going but mainly because I found it cold. I know John doesn't seem to be able to express emotions except anger, but he does feel them - we saw that in TRF - and a tiny, manly tear would have made all the difference to that scene. Oh, well. I think Sherlock's emotions must have been genuine - presumably he did think he was going to his death. If not, and it's all a set-up, it is going to make even less sense than his jumping off the roof. (Who would the phone call from Mycroft be intended to fool? The flight attendant?) Surely John must have thought Sherlock was likely to die. He isn't stupid and must have understood that the unlikelihood of their ever meeting again was because Sherlock was going off to risk his life. If not, how could they have been kept apart forever? Even if Sherlock was meant to go into permanent exile, he is clever enough to slip back into the country under a false identity. At the very least, he would manage to convey his whereabouts to John. I daresay Mycroft would be capable of preventing a law-abiding British citizen from travelling abroad, but John would presumably contest it in court, causing great embarrassment to the government. And would Mycroft be petty enough to try to keep them apart, anyway? Incidentally, I don't think Mycroft fears that the British citizenry would riot if Sherlock was imprisoned. I think he fears that Sherlock's aggravating personality would provoke frequent riots amongst the prison population.

I think you're mistaken about this though. John asks and Sherlock hedges a bit but tells him six months or so, I'm pretty sure. Unless you think John is being willfully obtuse about a man he cares for deeply but often can't figure out? But Sherlock does say they are unlikely ever to meet again. Surely John must realise that that means Sherlock expects to die? If not, why wouldn't they meet again someday? Even if he went undercover for years, let alone six months, there would be a good chance he would come home sooner or later. John must surely understand the subtext of "it's unlikely we'll meet again." In fact, that is the point where I feel that the man whose heart was broken after Reichenbach would show some sign of pain when he realised it was all happening again. I wouldn't expect hysterics.....but something, surely.

I thought HLV was an excellent episode - wrenching, heartbreaking and controversial - but a couple of scenes enraged me. One was the Xmas reconciliation scene, of course, but the other was the airfield farewell. I understand that John struggles to express emotion but he isn't wholly incapable of it - he isn't a robot - and he is supposed to be losing, for the second time, one of the most important people in his life. Sherlock stands there, practically leaking emotion from every pore, and John gives him nothing in return. Not even when Sherlock says they're unlikely to ever meet again.....Come on, John, for God's sake! No-one expects you to collapse in a blubbering heap, but you can't manage anything better than "We're not naming our daughter after you"? I thought it was further evidence of Mary's creepiness that she is there at what appears to be the end. Not content with going round to her victim's parents' house for Xmas, she turns up to see him off to his death after he has thrown away his own life to protect her. She shows about as much sadness as if she was seeing him off for a fortnight's holiday.......Genuine psychopath stuff. In view of the topic of this thread, I've got admit that I'm a Johnlock shipper, though I never expect it to become canon. Not even sure I want it to - spelling out the attraction between two characters often destroys the tension in the relationship. I know people sometimes assume that people who like Johnlock don't like Mary because she gets in the way, but that's not true. For a start, a lot of people do like her and either see her in a poly relationship with the two men, or giving them her blessing to their love or providing a reason for Sherlock to pine for John from a distance....Personally, I never thought she would be a problem, judging by the flexible imaginations of Johnlock fanfic writers who will cheerfully ignore the existence of anything which gets in the way.....My own dislike of Mary is based wholly on her actions. I thought she was lovely, up to the point when she shot Sherlock... So Mary isn't such a problem for Johnlock shippers, but John in HLV is a difficulty, I think. For the first time, I doubted his devotion to Sherlock and that made me a little sad.

So, do you think then that Sherlock jumped because, at that point, he didn't know whether the sniper had been caught or not, and therefore had to jump and hope the sniper couldn't see where he would land? Well, it makes more sense than staging the whole thing for John's benefit, which just seems absurd. As you say, he had to have a reason why he couldn't just walk back down after Jim's suicide, and the sniper was presumably that reason. The escape routes were presumably based on the assumption that the threat "I owe you a fall" was literal as well as metaphorical. (I would like to know what he planned to do if Jim had demanded he jump but hadn't conveniently shot himself.) It is hard to imagine what scenario Sherlock & Mycroft envisaged which required a jump from the roof but didn't include the possibility that any villains watching would be able to see the pavement and the airbag. He had 13 escape routes planned, and that was the one he decided to go with? I agree that the most likely reason for Sherlock not telling John the truth was that the latter was a marker, "a rat", for Jim's people. Presumably he couldn't risk telling John until he was more or less certain that the entire network is destroyed. It is possible that the last remnants were mopped up between his revelation to John - "I don't want everyone to know I'm alive" - and the point where his existence is revealed to the press. Surely Mycroft would have kept the information under wraps until he was sure it was safe? I can't say I noticed the detail of the laptop's colour or logo, but I agree it seems unnecessarily complicated. In fact, "unnecessarily complicated" does seem to be a trademark of the show's plot devices. On the other hand, you never know what they have planted as clues to later events.....

No, he didn't. It is not canon. Moriarty went over the waterfall but Holmes didn't. That's why he survived.

The jump made perfect sense in TRF. Sherlock has to fool the snipers, so he has to jump. Of course, that doesn't explain how he could know where the snipers were sited, and whether they could see him land, or how he intended to proceed if Jim hadn't conveniently shot himself, but at least the reason for jumping made sense. The explanation in TEH demolishes that reason. Take away the snipers, and what need is there for him to jump? If he wants to lull Jim's network into a false sense of security, all it needs is for Mycroft to announce his death. If they want to go for something more visible, they could easily have faked his death in a much more convincing way - something which didn't require any potential witnesses to stand in a particular spot at a particular time...... The same applied to John, if Sherlock had decided he had to be convinced of the "death.". Why not tell him Sherlock had taken an overdose or jumped under a train? Why set up such a madly complicated scheme, just to fool John? I would also like to ask Moffat why, if the emotional farewell was faked, Sherlock was crying? You can sound upset and tearful without actually weeping. No-one was up there to see him, so why the tears? None of it makes sense to me.

It is funny, really, that we all think Sherlock treated John pretty badly by disappearing for years and then returning with a joke, but the original return wasn't much better. The bookseller disguise - so beautifully spoofed in TEH - and then the rather convoluted explanation of his escape from the waterfall, and his account of his travels which sounds rather like boasting.....Went to Tibet, met the head lama, pretended to be a Norwegian explorer named Sigerson, did some chemical research in France.... On the other hand, Holmes didn't make Watson watch him "die". And I still don't understand why Sherlock inflicted it on John. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I can bear the idea of Sherlock having led a lonely existence - in fact, I quite like him as a solitary, misunderstood genius......What I don't like is the feeling that John, of all people, is letting him down. I did feel that way after watching HLV.

I don't think anyone would ever take John's place. Sherlock loves him. (You don't have to be a Johnlock shipper to see that!). When Moriarty threatens the people he cares about, the first word out of Sherlock's mouth is "John!" When he returns from exile, he is preoccupied by thoughts of John. He runs into a fire to save him, and throws away his liberty to keep John's family safe. John is clearly the most important person in Sherlock's life. But....maybe it wouldn't hurt if John was reminded of that, occasionally. If S4 had a case involving Victor, it would be interesting to see how the dynamic would shift between the two main characters, just as it altered with the introduction of Mary. Back in ASiP, it is John who seems to be drowning in loneliness, and the friendship with Sherlock rescues him. Now Sherlock is the lonely one. We don't know much about Sherlock's past - maybe Victor could enlighten us? - prior to meeting John, but maybe it was a case of "what you never have, you never miss.". Maybe he wasn't lonely until he had companionship and then lost it (by his own decision to leave, and then coming back to find his friend had moved on.) Or maybe he was lonely before he knew John....We just don't know. If Victor turned up, we might learn a bit more about Sherlock's past, which could be interesting.

I think you've put your finger on the problem, Zain. There is a shift in the John/Sherlock relationship and the scenes which make some of us uncomfortable - particularly the John and Mary reconciliation and the airfield farewell - illustrate it. John is still Sherlock's leverage but Sherlock is no longer John's. Even if Mary was out of the picture, would their friendship ever regain the importance for John that it still holds for Sherlock? Not that it isn't still important to John, but is it so fundamental to his happiness? I don't think any of this is canon. Watson always seemed, despite his job and his marriage, to retain the same deep, unquestioning commitment to Holmes. I don't really agree that Holmes was quintessentially lonely, either. If anything, I would say he was more emotionally contained - as a product of the late Victorian era - than modern Sherlock, and that Watson was such a reliable, unswerving source of friendship that he didn't really need anyone else. Sherlock, on the other hand, seems lonely in S3. Maybe it is because we live in an era where emotions are more freely expressed and examined, or maybe we feel now that characters should noticeably evolve, but both men seem different in S3. Sherlock is more vulnerable, John less. Of course, a lot of this is down to the shift in POV from John to Sherlock. We get a glimpse behind Sherlock's armour, and we see a John who is less Sherlock-centred. This isn't necessarily bad, even though it is a move away from ACD's Holmes and Watson relationship which, in my opinion, was at the heart of the original stories. I agree that it would be interesting to restore some of the balance by making John the third wheel in a relationship, for a change. Sherlock is clearly jealous of anyone who becomes involved with John, though he swallows his jealousy where Mary is concerned because he prioritises John's happiness. (He really is making progress, isn't he? ). But John also seems jealous when he thinks Sherlock has feelings for Irene or Janine..... Yes, bring in Victor Trevor! Maybe it would restore some equality to the relationship. At the very least, it would give us a hint of Sherlock's past that wasn't just drugs, dead dogs and "we all hated him."