Slithytove

I was afraid that the introduction of Mary would weaken the interaction between the two main characters. Then, when Mary seemed to be warm and understanding, I was much happier about the wedding (though I was sorry John would no longer live at 221B). Then her actions in HLV were appalling but consistent with being a villain, so that was okay...... What I didn't anticipate was John's behaviour. I expected the punch in the face, because Moftiss had strongly hinted that John's reaction to Sherlock's return would be much stronger that the original Watson's (i.e. fainting, followed by immediate acceptance). However, I didn't expect John ever to forgive someone (his own wife!) who hurt Sherlock, nor did I expect the series to end with the emotional gulf between the two men being so profound. I hadn't thought about Kitty returning but I did want to see Sally Donovan apologise. It is interesting that - judging by the fanfic, anyway - people seemed to assume that she would be the remorseful one whereas Anderson would stay hostile. I was happy for that to be wrong, because I enjoyed Anderson's journey from an irritating twit to a likeable human being.

I like your ideas, Zain. Wish it would turn out this way......

The introduction of little Watson (Sherly, surely?) seems an odd departure from canon. ACD wisely avoided giving Watson any paternal responsibilities. Presumably it would have seemed more irresponsible for him to go off on dangerous adventures with Holmes, if he was a dad. I'm intrigued to find out how the writers ate going to deal with the baby issue. I'm guessing they will either play it for laughs ( Sherlock as the world's most unsuitable baby sitter) or as a device to increase John's heartache (Mary loses the baby/runs away with it/it wasn't his child). I suppose baby and mum could just fade into the background, as part of John's domestic life, but then it seems a bit pointless to have introduced the idea in the first place. A few fanfic writers have suggested that the baby is the reason why John & Sherlock are pretending to forgive Mary, so she doesn't bolt and go into hiding before the birth, thus depriving John of the chance to apply for full custody. I would like it to turn out that way, but I suspect it won't.

I felt that it struck a false note - I just didn't feel that anyone, in that situation, would use that phrase. Seemed silly, to me.

The "very pissed off" remark was one of the things which annoyed me about the Xmas scene. "Very pissed off" is how you feel when your neighbour borrows your lawn mower and doesn't return it. It is how you feel when your friend says she'll be there at 8 but doesn't show up till 9. "Very pissed off" is how I'll be if S4 goes back to fluffy Mrs & Mrs Watson and their pal Sherlock.... "Very pissed off" isn't the way anyone in their right mind would describe the experience of being deceived about someone's identity, marrying her under false pretences and then finding out she had shot their best friend. It seemed ridiculous to me as soon as John said it.

I like Jim a lot - he is so ridiculously evil. So I hope he is alive. I know it invalidates a lot of the rooftop scene, but so does most of Sherlock's explanation. (Why was he so upset, if his plan was working? Was the whole thing staged for John's benefit? Why did he do it all, if the sniper had been arrested?.....) However, I suspect it will turn out to be a trick. So..... I hope Mary will turn out to be the next Big Bad. I hope we don't get an explanation of why she had to become an assassin to rescue or avenge her family, or something feeble like that. I hope they have the guts to let her be a criminal mastermind with an evil empire as vast as the (possibly) late Moriarty's. Better that than the little wife weeping in hubby's arms and being put aside so the menfolk can go and sort out her problems.... What I suspect we will get is more emotional arm-twisting to like her. The baby will probably get in on that act too. Wouldn't be surprised if Mary has to sacrifice herself to save someone else's life, thus supposedly redeeming herself. (Not in my eyes, though..... ) I won't stop watching if she becomes part of the crime solving team, but it will enrage me. I would like to see Lestrade get to play a bigger role in some stories. Anderson too - in S3, he had mellowed from an irritating prat into a human being. And, of course, I love Molly, so I hope we get to see plenty more of the lovely little scenes between her and Sherlock.

No, you misunderstand me, I think. I am saying that there were nods towards the fans in TEH - the substitution of Jim's body, which I have seen in more than one fanfic, and the almost-kiss between Sherlock and Jim - but they are not that strongly influenced by the fantasies which the fans have created. I gave the Johnlock fan works as an example, as it is probably the biggest impetus behind the fan fiction and artworks.

Up to a point, I think all writers write for themselves. Whatever you are writing, even if it is to someone else's formula, is filtered through your own consciousness and written in your own voice. Up to a point. Because any work that isn't self-published is appraised by someone - an agent, an editor, a publisher or whatever, and they've got to like it before it gets any further. So far, so obvious. Now consider Moftiss and the BBC. On the one hand, you've got the imagination and originality of the writers, creating according to their vision. On the other hand, you've got the BBC with their eye on a massive audience, both at home and overseas, plus they foot the bill. So they have got a say as well. They've got to be convinced that the audience is going to like what you come up with. So no-one has complete autonomy. I want the creators of Sherlock, and anything else, to be free to write what they want and I am sure that - up to a point - they are. Realistically, you also have to acknowledge that they, like everyone else in the media, are creating a product to sell, and it has to satisfy its target audience. I doubt that the work is written in direct response to the fandom. If it was, given the huge amount of Johnlock out there, John would never have left 221b and would probably be married to Sherlock by now. But TEH clearly contained affectionate nods towards the fans and I would be surprised if Moftiss was unaware of the schism that Mary's character seems to have caused. (Though I do wonder whether they expected it, or if they thought we would all automatically follow John and Sherlock's lead.). I'm hoping they'll go back to the story in S4, what I don't want is Mr & Mrs Fluffy-Watson and their old pal Sherlock, solving crimes and being great mates and never addressing the issue that one of them nearly killed the other. I think that would be an insult to our intelligence, and I hope that the people involved feel the same way.

HLV is an odd one, really. I do agree that it's an exciting episode, brilliantly done - the Mind Palace scenes are some of my favourites of the entire three series. Even though I find the writing rather manipulative, I still enjoy watching it. (Daren't tell my family how many times I've really seen it!) But it does seem that they are trying to re-write John's character somewhat, to make it fit the plot. Throughout the series, he has thrown himself into risky situations, but there's been no mention of his liking dangerous people. (I don't agree that he ditched the dull girlfriends because he was waiting for a dangerous - in my opinion, psychopathic - woman to turn up. He chose to go out with these women. He didn't have to pick boring girlfriends. Something about them attracted him. And Mary seemed pleasant and fairly ordinary to start with - even Sherlock believed it - so maybe he just broke up with the dull women because he wasn't ready for a long-term relationship then. Or maybe, as previous episodes suggested, Sherlock's jealousy and selfishness broke them up.). He has to be drawn to risky people, just as he had to ditch his strong moral principles, to make the plot work - to explain his forgiveness of Mary. I don't think Mary necessarily meant to kill Sherlock when she went after him with a gun, but I think she was fully prepared to do so. If she was convinced he would keep his mouth shut, maybe she would have let him live. I doubt it, because no assassin in their right mind would leave a witness ( a highly intelligent, well-connected witness with a fantastic memory and a good reason to hate her!) at large, but it is possible. But she makes it extremely clear that she would do anything to prevent John learning the truth. It was an obvious threat that, if he intended to tell John, she would kill him first.

Yes, I can see John is, maybe, drawn to dangerous situations.....maybe because, as an army doctor, he has experienced life at the sharp end and knows that's where he can be most useful. Or maybe he does just like the rush. I prefer the first explanation but I can see the second is possible too. What I find questionable is that he is drawn to dangerous people. Apart from Sherlock himself - and Mary, if you think it is possible to know subconsciously that someone is dangerous, even though they've never shown you any sign - apart from them, who else? He had a string of dull girlfriends and couldn't bear any of the dangerous people he met such as Irene, Jim or (according to Sherlock's comment in ASiP) Mycroft.

Maybe he took up extreme sports - bungee jumping and whitewater kayaking..... Moftiss are very keen, it seems, on the idea of John as an adrenaline junkie. A bit different from the original Watson, who was always ready for adventure but didn't seem to get antsy if life didn't provide enough excitement. I can just about accept the idea of John Watson who lives for thrills, but I think Sherlock's line about him being drawn to dangerous people is a bit unfair. Like who? Well, there's Sherlock himself, of course. He is dangerous to be around. And then there is.... who? Mary is dangerous and she, along with Sherlock, implies that John knew this subconsciously, but why should he have done? She seems to have kept her nice persona intact throughout their dating and marriage. It was good enough to fool Sherlock, so presumably it would fool John too. So what other dangerous people does John seek out? His girlfriends were so boring that Sherlock got them muddled up, and so did John. Irene was dangerous but John seemed to thoroughly dislike her. Jim was incredibly dangerous but, where Sherlock was initially fascinated, John loathed him from the very beginning. If anyone is drawn to dangerous people, it is Sherlock. A bit unfair to project it onto John.

If It turns out that Sherlock really believes his own "surgery" theory, I will be very disappointed. He knows - and John and Mary, as a doctor and a nurse/assassin know - that shooting someone doesn't work like that. You can't fire a bullet into someone's torso and expect to make a nice, neat little wound that temporarily incapacitates but does not kill. It smashes into you and wreaks havoc amongst your major organs. Sherlock knows this - in his mind palace, he knows what damage has been done to his body and he knows he is dying. (And, when he flatlines, he is basically dead - the surgeons have already turned away from him, and brain death would have followed shortly if not for the "John is in danger" miracle.). The theory that Mary goes for a slower death, not a kill shot, so John will have to tend to him rather than pursue his killer is much more plausible, and if we mere mortals could think of it, did it never occur to the genius? "When you have eliminated the impossible.....". But he hadn't eliminated all other possibilities when looking for an explanation of why she didn't shoot him through the head. He just came up with a rather ridiculous one. Unless it is a ploy. At the moment, it appears that the writers want us to swallow a large chunk of unbelievable plot, but you never know. They're a devious lot (Moriarty is dead. Oh, yes, definitely. No, he isn't. Perhaps.). Sherlock lies whenever it suits him, and I would never take his word at face value, if I was John. Of course, if it is a lie, it is quite cruel but that has never stopped Sherlock when it's part of a scheme. I can't agree that Irene doesn't really care for Sherlock. Yes, she betrays his trust and humiliates him in front of his brother to protect herself. It is a lesser (much, much lesser!) version of Mary's betrayal of John. Generally, people believe Mary truly loves John, so why shouldn't Irene care for Sherlock? (I don't know I would go as far as saying she loved him.). Like Mycroft, Irene is a cold character whereas Mary is warm and cuddly. You have to judge people by their actions, though. T.o.b.y had an interesting viewpoint, i.e. that grief is worse than physical injury or death and thus Sherlock's deception is worse than Mary's shooting. I respect that view but, given the choice, I think I would rather be very, very sad than dead. I have lived through loss and grief too many times, and each time I wished I was dead. Do I still wish it? Well, no....I would not have met the people who came into,my life since those deaths. (My grandkids, for a start.). In the same way, John was heartbroken and he mourned, but his life was moving on. He met Mary and was starting to be happy again. Surely that is better than what Mary did to Sherlock - at best, taking the risk of depriving him of his future. And she would have been putting John back into mourning again, if Sherlock died - in fact, it was very possible he would die in John's arms, on the office floor, so John could have a whole lifetime of blaming himself for being unable to stop his best friend bleeding to death. Frankly, I wonder just how much Mary really cares about John.

There was a headless monk in an old radio show starring Basil Rathbone as Holmes.....

I still love the show and I'm looking forward to S4, but I strongly agree with all you say about Mary and also about John. What they did to John's character annoys me much more than what happened with Mary. They can make her into a ruthless, two -faced villain and that's fine but, instead, the writing seems to be saying, "Look, Sherlock says it's okay, so John thinks it's okay, so you've got to think it's okay. Aren't they sweet together?". That's manipulative but what they did to John... Throughout the series, we've come to know this good, decent, loyal man. Now he can forgive his wife for effectively murdering his dearest friend, he doesn't want to know who else she killed and he can't show any real feeling when he is saying goodbye to said friend forever. Every time I watch the airfield scene, it is really painful. Okay, so John is a very reserved Englishman - bit of a cliche, but never mind - but he isn't a robot. Sherlock tells him they'll never meet again and John can't come up with anything? Nothing? Just "We're not naming our daughter after you"?

I second that. Whole-heartedly. To throw some new material for speculation in (so that we don't have to discuss BC's body, as lovely as it might be...): Anybody notice the screen Mycroft's looking at when he tells Lestrade about the two other boltholes? It shows a map of Poland, and the mission is called Ugly Duckling. Eastern Europe, where Sherlock was supposed to be sent off to. Only character that I can remember which was associated with Poland (Warsaw) in canon was Irene Adler. Too much of a coincidence, or a possible hint for season 4? Maybe Irene is getting another appearance? Then there's the mission name: Ugly Duckling. Also a hint? After all, the "ugly duckling" is a swan who accidentally rolled into a duck's nest as a egg. A metaphor for secret family relationships? It's a bit interesting how things do connect but not really make sense. There's Magnussen who is Danish. Then we get a mission named after a Danish children tale about an "adopted child." We also get a hint in the episode that there's a possible third Holmes sibling. DId maybe Magnussen in the end actually have something on Mycroft? If there's something to know, then it's an open secret in some circles (he's mentioning it quite liberally at the end of the episode). But could have Magnussen threatened to, for example, tell Sherlock who seems oblivious to another sibling? Magnussen states that Mycroft had been looking for a way to remove Magnussen. Which is quite a contradiction to Mycroft's intial response: "You go against Magnussen, and you find yourself going against me." I wonder if something happened between those two statements. Just to throw in something new. I personally have another favorite theory It is interesting, though. So many references to Eastern Europe.I wonder if the east wind's set to arrive in season 4. If that mission will be a feature in the next season. That could mean things pick up right after the end of HLV. I wouldn't mind if there was another story arc that spans over two seasons like with season 1 and season 2. Or this is just me, hoping desperately that there's more behind what happened last season than we were meant to see. Now you point it out, there are a lot of references to Eastern Europe. Maybe Mary's backstory is located there? Or Moriarty's hiding place? (Or both?). Or maybe a new villain is on his way. Who was the Baron that Mycroft referred to, regarding Serbia? If it was a canon reference, I missed it. I would love to see Sherlock and John running around Prague. Such a beautiful city, and quite spooky too. Not sure that the BBC's budget would stretch that far, though.

Yeah, happy to explain my POV..... For a start, it is a billion times worse to shoot someone than to lie to them. Grief is a horrible thing and, when you are going through it, can feel worse than physical pain but most people do survive it and somehow get on with their lives. That was happening to John. He mourned, he started a new life without Sherlock, he met Mary and he was happy again. Take a bullet and the chances are that your life is over. (As Sherlock's was - his miraculous recovery in surgery requiring a considerable suspension of disbelief.). Then there is the pain she inflicted. When Pope John Paul was shot, I remember an expert saying that the impact would be like being hit by a car at over a hundred miles an hour. The pain is unbearable. It's not something you're going to bounce back from, any time soon. In fact, Sherlock climbing out the window and dashing round London is ridiculous but, of course, necessary for the plot. And, apart from the damage done to Sherlock, what was she doing to John, the man she is supposed to love? If mourning Sherlock hurt him so much, what would happen if he had to do it all over again? Knowing her husband is downstairs, she shoots his best friend - the man he was mourning when she met him - and leaves him dying on the floor for John to find. Then there is intent. Sherlock lied to John, let him think he had witnessed a suicide and let him grieve for two years. Certainly it was cruel. However, it was not done with the intention of hurting. It might even be that, by claiming he was a fake, Sherlock was using his rooftop farewell to try to disillusion John and lessen the pain. (If not, I don't know why he said it.). He was also protecting John as well as himself by not contacting him, though he was obviously tempted to do so. Mary's intention was, at best, to cause a very serious injury to disable him. At worst, she wanted him to bleed out, thus preventing John from chasing her, and to die, thus ensuring his silence. When he didn't die, she went after him with a gun. It isn't a matter of just disliking Mary. I did like her up to the shooting. Much as I love Sherlock, if the positions were reversed and he had killed her just because she was an innocent witness, it would be just as bad. I agree Mycroft is cold and creepy compared to Mary's apparent warmth and sweetness in the first two episodes and his methods are questionable, but I don't think he intends his brother to be hurt, much less killed. So, for me, Mary's actions are completely different from those of the Holmes brothers.

I prefer Moriarty to Mary. That is because, with Moriarty, you know he is a thoroughly evil, dyed-in-the-wool villain. He doesn't pretend to love you before he maims you, he doesn't expect forgiveness and big hugs all round, he doesn't turn up at your mum's house for Christmas dinner..... There is no betrayal there, no exploitation of trust and love, because there was never any expectation of goodness. As a character, he has charisma - though quite a lot of that may be due to Andrew Scott - but we are not expected to find him lovable, well-intentioned and worthy of forgiveness. More to the point, the other characters are not expected to see him in this way. No-one gives him a cuddle, turns a blind eye to his past misdeeds and manages to forgive him for trying to destroy Sherlock. Jim and Mary are, in my opinion, both bad people but the writers aren't nudging us towards loving him. They aren't distorting the other characters' personalities in their reactions to him. To me, John deciding to resume his relationship with Mary as if nothing happened is about as in-character as if Sherlock suddenly decided to start dating Moriarty.

I'm afraid I have no qualms whatsoever in discussing, at some length, the loveliness that is Mr Cumberbatch. I wouldn't discuss the unattractiveness of anyone, famous or not, and cringe when others do so, but I have no problem saying that the man is remarkably beautiful. And talented, of course. Hmm, Mycroft...... I think the difference is that it was not Mycroft's intent to harm his brother. We know he was a passive observer rather than an active participant but, even if he had been forced by circumstances to take part, he would be merely playing a role with the intention of saving Sherlock's life. I agree that it seems very cold, to sit and watch your brother being tortured, but we don't know why he didn't intervene earlier. Maybe he couldn't, without blowing his cover. Mycroft is an extremely cold character, difficult to like, but his schemes are intended to keep his brother alive ( presumably he was responsible for Sherlock escaping from Serbia.). Mary deliberately chose to harm - to kill, in my opinion - Sherlock whereas Mycroft was trying, in his rather callous way, to keep him alive. Sending him undercover to his death certainly seems to violate Mycroft's determination to keep his brother alive, and I think there are two possible explanations. One is that he knows prison would destroy Sherlock. If he didn't provoke the other inmates into killing him, the boredom and restriction would drive him to suicide. As a free agent, he has at least a chance of survival. The other possibility is that Mycroft always planned for him to survive and come home, as his remark "England will always need a Sherlock Holmes" implies. I think this explanation is quite likely, though I hope that "Did you miss me?" isn't his doing. So I think it is the intent - to harm or to save - that is the difference. He won't win any Big Brother of the Year awards, though.

After John & Sherlock, of course, Lestrade is my favourite character, even though his appearances are pretty brief. I wish they featured him more often. The contrast between his good-natured, somewhat put-upon and extremely grounded personality and Sherlock's chaotic, impulsive brilliance is so good - he's as down-to-earth as John but a bit more detached and thus able to retain more perspective (plus a healthy dose of cynicism.) A lot of fanfic is based on the premise that they meet when Sherlock is young and addicted and that Lestrade, recognising his genius, offers him work if he cleans up his act. I'd like to see what Moftiss can come up with, regarding their past and Lestrade's initial reasons for inviting an outsider into official police business. I would also like him to be allowed to make a correct deduction of his own, just once in a while.

Mary has many reasons to love Sherlock and one reason to kill him - he is a witness, that's all. So she kills him ( his eventual survival being due to a rather unlikely miracle.) Then, when he doesn't die, she goes hunting for him with a gun. I know that people kill those they love in crimes of passion. I don't believe that, if you shoot someone in cold blood and then you hunt them down with the threat of doing it again, you ever loved them. If someone I loved might get me arrested, or might ruin my relationship with another loved one, I couldn't kill them. I don't believe anyone could. Most people can't kill someone they don't even have feelings for, because pity intervenes. Obviously this doesn't apply to Mary, who is an assassin. But could she love Sherlock and not feel enough pity to hold her back from murdering him? I don't buy it. Maybe S4 will contain revelations which illuminate her character. Hope so, anyway. Zain has a good point that killing someone takes away all their potential, for good as well as evil. Admittedly CAM isn't very promising material for repentance, but who knows? Also, deciding you've got the right to execute someone means you think you have the right to take them away from those who love them. CAM is a slimy, horrid man but maybe he has someone (his mum?) who loves him. Have you got the right to break that person's heart? Even if people get life in prison, the people they love can visit them, write to them and know they still exist. Killing takes all that away forever. No doubt Lady Smallwood grieved for her husband, driven to suicide by CAM's blackmail. Maybe he wasn't the only one who chose that way out. However, even if CAM killed people with his bare hands, it doesn't mean you have the right to kill him unless you do it to save another life. You can't judge your own actions by your enemy's standards, or you are no better than them. I do consider Sherlock's action heroic because of his motives and his self-sacrifice. I would say something can be heroic but also stupid and/or wrong. That is why I don't think the shooting was premeditated. I think he threw away everything in one grand, self-destructive gesture. No doubt S4 will show I am wrong and it was all Mycroft's idea.....

Interesting. You think she really loves Sherlock? I thought so too, up to the moment she shot him. After that, every time we see her look at him, her face is utterly cold, except when she is saying goodbye to him at the airfield - seeing him off to his death. Irene, I liked. Tough but genuinely cares about Sherlock - maybe even loves him. Bit of a blackmailer, though.

Dream roles? Well, Shakespeare, for a start..... That lovely velvet voice was made for it. Hamlet is obvious. (I'd love to see him play the role onstage, but tickets will be impossible to get.). He is a bit too old for Romeo and much too young for Lear, but Macbeth would be good. I would love to see him play the appropriately-named Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing, with a really good Beatrice - Lara Pulver springs to mind. I can imagine them doing that wonderful verbal sparring which gradually turns to love...... Then there are the classic male romantic leads - Darcy, Rochester, Heathcliffe. He has the voice ( again!) and the physical presence to play any , or all, of them. I would also like him to do comedy. He has great comic timing (and even got a few laughs in Frankenstein, which took a bit of doing) and doesn't seem to take himself too seriously. I don't like rom - cons, though I admit I would watch one if he was in it, so I would like to see him in a really witty, well-written comedy. Bliss. And maybe a film version of Neverwhere, where he was the Angel....

I like Sherlock too, because.....well, all right, I just love him as a character, and the fact that he is played by an exceptionally beautiful man doesn't hurt either ...... But I like the fact that, however wrong his actions may be, his motives are good. I would even go as far as saying that they're noble. I don't want to get too deep into the Mary debate again but that, I think, is where they part company. Both do things which are wrong but one does them to save the lives of others and accepts the consequences, the other to protect herself and escape retribution. Do you think Mary suffers hugely for her actions? I thought she got off extremely lightly whereas Sherlock presumably expects a life sentence and gets handed a death sentence instead. I don't think it's a case of looking for moral guidance. I can't say I consciously think about morality on a day to day basis (I think I've used the word "moral" more times on this forum than at any other time in my life!). But, when you start unravelling the strands of a story, you realise that life is about making moral choices all the time. We are always deciding, usually without consciously thinking about it, what is right and wrong and what choice we are going to make. It is just that few of us face major choices such as whether we are going to kill someone or not.

The thing is, CAM was directly responsible for people dying. I doubt Lord Smallwood was the first nor would he have been the last if somehow he wasn't stopped. We have Mycroft's comments in the front yard sharing a smoke with Sherlock. "A necessary evil" and "He never harmed anyone of consequence". So yeah, CAM was not only doing harm to people but was being protected, aided and abetted. CAM exploited his position as a newspaper magnate to gain power over people. Some people would say that real life press barons do the same. And, even if it is just for the sake of a good story which will sell newspapers rather than for personal power, they will print stories which hurt people. Some of those people might even feel driven to take their own lives. Is it okay to kill the people who print damaging stories? Is it only okay if it can be proved the story was the catalyst for someone's suicide? Does it make a difference that CAM doesn't print the story if people do what he wants? If so, what's the reason? Is it okay to kill him if he says he will use the information he possesses to put someone in danger? Even though we don't know if he really would? (We know he put John in a bonfire, for which he should certainly go to prison, but he claimed he would not have allowed him to die.). This is Sherlock's justification, as far as we know. A deeply emotional decision, and an impulsive one, I believe.

It isn't moral to blackmail people, of course, or to commit any sort of crime. However, killing people because they commit crimes surely can't be justified. Even if you believe in the death penalty for murder, surely you wouldn't want it extended to crimes like blackmail. Nor would most people want it to be carried out by self-appointed vigilantes. I don't feel the same moral revulsion over Sherlock shooting CAM that I feel over Mary shooting Sherlock, as CAM was clearly a villain and the motive was to save other people's lives whereas Sherlock was an innocent friend and the motive was to preserve her lifestyle, i.e. as a free woman whose husband did not know about her past. Doesn't mean it was right, though.