Slithytove

I don't believe that Sherlock planned CAM's murder. I think it was supposed to be the act of a desperate man prepared to sacrifice himself for the people he loves. I think he would be a monster if he decided in cold-blood that he had the right to destroy those he hated. Maybe he does think he is monstrous, but I think we are intended to see he is wrong. I'm intrigued that Moffat who says some strong things about killing people like CAM being fine and justifiable is the same man who is responsible for Dr Who, a character who has become increasingly troubled by his conscience and appalled by the use of violence even when it can't be avoided. Of course, that happens in practically every episode -it's an adventure, after all - but the Doctor no longer has his old gung-ho attitude to obliterating his enemies. He will do it, to protect the innocent, but the responsibility for the deaths he has caused - of the innocent and the guilty - weighs heavily upon him. Guilt has been a recurring theme, particularly for the last two Doctors. I can't imagine Sherlock will be tortured by remorse, as we are clearly supposed to feel that he has slain the dragon. Of course, most of us have a knee-jerk reaction of "Yes! Good!" when the hero kills the bad guy. (Frankly, if I was Sherlock, I would have wanted to murder CAM after he insulted my country and had a pee in my fireplace.....). But I don't think he should have done it, even though he was motivated by the need to protect his friends. CAM wasn't an immediate threat to anyone's life, so there was time to find another way to immobilise him. I want Sherlock the genius, rather than Sherlock the action hero (which is why I hate the Guy Ritchie version.) Use your magnificent brain, Sherlock. A gun is too easy. I've got to admit, though, it was a very effective climax to the plot build-up, and quite beautifully played. Sherlock surrendering and turning, in Mycroft's mind ( and Sherlock's?) into a frightened little boy, is one of my favourite scenes in the whole series.

I second the vote for more Lestrade. A great character, criminally underused. Another example, to my mind, of the vast superiority of Sherlock over Elementary. I hated what they had done with Lestrade's character in the latter, turning him into a publicity-seeking oaf. The character as portrayed by Rupert Graves retains some of the original Lestrade's baffled scepticism but he is a good-hearted, humorous and loyal friend - they should definitely put him in a few more scenes. I thought his reaction to Sherlock's return from the dead was lovely.

I don't agree that Sherlock knew about CAM's mind palace. Look at his face during and immediately after the revelation - shocked and anxious, with nothing to say. If he was expecting the vaults to be non-existent, why does he look so distressed, when he was previously so cheerful when walking to the helicopter? Sherlock's antipathy to CAM is a bit of a puzzle. Why does he find him more repulsive than serial killers and psychopaths? Apparently because he preys on the weaknesses of people who are different. But the only blackmail we know of involves Mary (a past as a killer) and Lord Smallwood (explicit letters to an under-age girl). Neither of those subjects amount to being "different". Presumably Sherlock knows of someone who is "different" and has been targeted by CAM and this has, for some reason, really got to him. In Conan Doyle's days, the most likely "difference" as a blackmail subject would be homosexuality, but would it destroy many people to be outed these days? I wonder just what it is that makes Sherlock hate CAM with particular vehemence?

Judging by the fanfic written before S3, most people assumed the brothers' childhood must have been cold and loveless, if not downright abusive, to produce adults who find it so difficult to express (or feel?) emotion. Now we have apparently nice, ordinary Mummy and Daddy - I would be inclined to think they adopted the boys when they were very little, after a very bad start which left its mark on them despite Mr & Mrs Holmes's best efforts, but that theory has been derailed by casting Benedict's real parents. Moffat said, quite rightly, that no other couple could have produced that extraordinary face. Trauma involving "the other one" could explain a lot, and presumably Mycroft played a role in it or, at least, did nothing to prevent it. I wonder if Sherlock knows what happened. Whatever it was, Mycroft's colleagues appear to know about it, so it can't be that much of a skeleton in the closet. Whatever happened to Sherlock and Mycroft to make them the men they are, it can't have been anywhere near as bad as Jim Moriarty's childhood.... Something grim surely produced someone so damaged.

I'm sure I remember reading an interview where Benedict said that, when he first took on the role, he asked, "Why is he like this?" and Moffat said, "Because he's a genius!" and Benedict said "Yes, but seriously, why is he like this?". Apparently the writers didn't - at that point, anyway - invent a backstory for the character, so maybe we can make it up for ourselves. If we hadn't already met Mummy & Daddy Holmes, I would be inclined to guess that the brothers lost their parents when they were at a very vulnerable age. It would explain Mycroft's "All hearts are broken" line, particularly as he is older and would have had a greater understanding of what was happening at the time. It would also be a good reason for both of them choosing to detach themselves from their emotions, so they would never have to endure again the pain of such a terrible loss. It is interesting that, once we start to see Sherlock's story through his own eyes, it is funny but also deeply sad.

Both Sherlock and Mycroft's emotional make up is.....well, "abnormal" may be too strong a word. Let's say "unusual." Both seem to have cocooned themselves in protective isolation. They convinced themselves that not only did they not care for others, they actually could not care. (Remember the morgue scenes in ASiB.). Love for John gradually induces Sherlock to creep out beyond his self-imposed barriers. Mycroft remains aloof. Who is happier? Hard to say. The conventional view is that love is always worth the pain, and most of us believe it. Most people, after a break-up or a death, feel that "If I never loved, I never would have cried" but we don't want to live like that for the rest of our lives. But most of us are not the Holmes brothers. Imagine how incredibly painful it must have been for Sherlock to discover that, contrary to all that he had been told (by Mycroft?), he did have a heart. He gets to enjoy the warmth of John's friendship - but he also gets to experience the hurt, the fear and the sadness that comes with it. Yes, he was looking for a flatmate but did he expect to make him such a big part of his life? Did he even realise he had been lonely until he met John? I think we see - most clearly in TSoT - that Sherlock feels that caring for someone is worth the risk of getting hurt. Mycroft, watching from the sidelines, clearly does not. Not only does he stay isolated, he urges Sherlock to do the same. What happened to the brothers to give them the idea that love is "a chemical defect"? There is a meta by Wellingtongoose that suggests that the Holmes parents had to be ordinary to produce such extraordinary children. Gattiss says it makes sense, because Sherlock was always " a bit indulged." I am not convinced. To have two men with such emotional withdrawal..... I feel there must have been some trauma in their past that convinced them that the only way to avoid pain was to close down their feelings and convince themselves they did not care.

Is he happier? I think we all get the impression that John is probably his first real friend - in canon, of course, there's Victor Trevor, but I don't imagine he is on a par with John - and the most meaningful relationship of his life. This opens him up to companionship and all the happiness that that entails. Even if you believe his feelings for John are purely platonic, it is evident that the connection is deep and meaningful, adding a dimension to Sherlock's life that did not previously exist. It humanises him. On the other hand, it opens him up to pain as well. Until he met John, did he feel lonely? Or did he just stay in his happy, isolated little bubble? When John is threatened, Sherlock is frightened. When John hits him and won't forgive him, he knows what it is like to be rejected. Clearly he knows what loneliness is now, with John gone from 221B and Sherlock no longer the most important person in his life. Being more human means being more easily hurt. On balance, I would say Sherlock accepts the pain because the happiness outweighs it. He wants to stay in a relationship with John even though, throughout S3, we see it can be emotionally difficult. But Mycroft? The man whose mantras are " caring is not an advantage" and "don't get involved." Mycroft seems terrified of getting hurt. (I wonder why?). I don't think Mycroft would understand that it is worth caring even if your heart gets broken.

The idea that Janine is part of Mary's scheme makes more sense than having Mary break into his penthouse, come downstairs, knock out Janine and the guard and then go back upstairs. Why not go straight for CAM, do what you came for, and then leave? Why go into the reception area at all? On the other hand, if it was a plot between the two women, why invite Sherlock in to witness everything? It seems very risky. Easier to pretend she was unconscious when CAM was killed, as there would be nothing to link her to the killer. Re. Janine and CAM, we don't know what their relationship was like. We know she sold her story to his rivals (after she quit?) but we also know she let him flick her eye, as he did John's. I know people put up with a lot from unpleasant bosses, but why would she let him go that far? It implies he had some hold over her, but that had presumably vanished by the time she sold her story.

But the way that Mary entered must go through the reception area, because she takes out Janine and the guard. If she entered straight into the room where CAM was, she would have had to go past him, go downstairs, attack Janine and the guard, and go back up again. Which doesn't make sense.

My daughter watched that episode of Elementary before I did, and said "You wait till you find out who Moriarty is - it's really bad.". She was so right. I found myself yelling at the screen, "What? Irene is Moriarty? Oh, for God's sake, how ridiculous!". About as absurd as changing Mycroft from being "the British Government" to owning a chain of restaurants. Why....? I am afraid I don't agree that Sherlock doesn't romanticise. I think the "dragon slayer" is a great romantic, - particularly where his own persona is concerned.

I assumed Janine had quit her job after the attack, as I doubted she would sell her story to CAM's rivals otherwise. I also doubt that, spirited though she is, she would risk his wrath by letting Sherlock into the penthouse, unless she was already intending to quit. From what we know of CAM, I would imagine he was an extremely horrible boss and not one you would wish to antagonise

I know Jim wanted Sherlock to commit suicide, but how did Sherlock and Mycroft plan that a fake suicide would work, with him standing there watching? And why would his network care whether it was suicide, murder, accidental death or natural causes, as long as Sherlock was dead? Now I come to think of it, what was Sherlock hoping to achieve by meeting Jim on the roof? As far as I remember, Holmes met Moriarty at the top of the waterfall with the clear intention of getting rid of him. Did Sherlock intend something similar - a fight ending with Jim going over the edge? And if that was not the outcome he wanted, what did he actually want to happen?

But why jump off a roof? If one of Jim's people was watching, how did Sherlock know they couldn't see the airbag? If they weren't watching, why not just announce the news that Sherlock was dead? Mycroft could have made up any cause of death, without having to go through such a complicated and risky scenario.

Given that they dealt so easily with the sniper, who was the jump supposed to fool? Not the sniper - Mycroft's men got him. Not Jim - his suicide wasn't anticipated but he would have to be killed or arrested, because he would otherwise watch Sherlock jump and land on an airbag. Not the other snipers - if the sniper who appeared to be watching was dealt with by Mycroft, who told Mrs Hudson and Lestrade's snipers that Sherlock had jumped? Another observer? But how could Sherlock know where this unknown person was standing, and whether they could see the airbag? Jim's network? - maybe, but why such an elaborate "death"? What is the point? Not John - Sherlock had sent him back to Baker Street on a wild goose chase. He might not have returned, or might not have got back in time. Presumably the idea of getting him to stand where his view was obscured, and having the cyclist standing by, was a contingency plan in case he turned up before Sherlock jumped. Anyway, what would be the point of staging it all for John's benefit? Prior to S3, when it seemed the Fall was staged to fool John's sniper who would then inform the others, it made a sort of sense. (Though I could never work out how they could know that the sniper couldn't see the pavement from his viewpoint.) Now I can't understand what it was for.

Mary actually gets a lot done in a very short amount of time. Whilst John and Sherlock are travelling in the lift, she has to get in by some other route (which presumably goes through the reception area), knock out Janine and the guard, get upstairs and threaten CAM. He must have been in the reception area very shortly before her arrival, if his chair was still warm, but obviously he wasn't there when Janine let Sherlock in. In fact, why did she let him in, if CAM was still there? Why would she risk him coming back downstairs and finding Sherlock there without permission? A lot of employers might be indulgent if someone had just proposed, but CAM hardly falls into that category. I can't imagine she would dare to do it, practically as soon as he left the room.

I'm ashamed to say I would listen to that beautiful voice reciting anything at all. (Singing would be fantastic.). My family find this extremely amusing. Stephen Moffat really is a little fibber, isn't he, telling us that Moriarty would never return, and now saying it was planned all along? God knows what they've really got planned. It is interesting that they plan to develop Molly and Hudders a bit more in S4, as they are the two female characters in Sherlock that don't fall into the Dull Girlfriend or Wicked Woman categories. ( Janine has potential to be a three-dimensional character, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if she turns out to be Wicked.) I hope that developing the characters doesn't mean messing them up. There aren't that many strong older female roles on tv, outside the soaps, so it would be great if they allowed Mrs Hudson a moment of glory.

Art is a catch-all term for creative work whose value is primarily aesthetic. It doesn't have to be serious. It doesn't even have to be good. Of course, Sherlock is an adventure. It is a romp, not a piece of high-minded literature. On the other hand, high-minded literature might get an audience of hundreds or, at best, thousands. Sherlock is watched by millions. Its creators are not aiming for deathless prose but they are telling their stories to a vast international audience. It isn't ridiculous, in that context, to take those stories seriously. I'm still uncertain about the idea of an artist's responsibility to their audience. Surely their only responsibility to an audience is to produce the best work of which they are capable. What they do have to do is take responsibility for their own work. You have to be true to your own vision, but if you are homophobic, sexist, racist or whatever and it shows in your work, then you have to take responsibility for that. If Moffat genuinely holds the views attributed to him and shapes his female characters according to those views, he has to be prepared for people to object those characters. An artist is under no obligation to conform to please an audience, but an audience isn't obliged to like what it is given. Sherlock, John, Mycroft, Lestrade...... Moftiss can create male characters who are strong and interesting without being bad. They seem less able when it comes to the women. Thank God for Molly and Mrs Hudson........

I don't feel particularly agitated about the remarks quoted - they are offensive but hardly unique, and we've all heard such nonsense many times before. It is, of course, possible he was misquoted or spoke ironically but, if it keeps happening, maybe he should take a bit more care to be quoted accurately. Maybe lay off the irony too... What do you mean, exactly, by the artist having very little responsibility to the audience? In the context that we have been discussing, do you mean Stephen Moffat has no responsibility to create female characters which are not shaped by his misogynistic views? (If he does hold the views attributed to him.) I am not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. You mentioned Wagner and, of course, music is somewhat different to writing in that its meaning is more subjective. You can listen to Wagner's music and never know about his virulently anti-Semitic opinions, whereas you would have no doubt if you read his articles, particularly "Jewishness In Music.". Would you feel he had any responsibility to his audience if he could have expressed his views more explicitly through his art? My own feeling is that art, in any medium, is the one place where you can't hide - that your work is informed by everything you are, everything you think and do. Of course, a show such as Sherlock has a lot of input from a lot of people. However, I would say that everything begins with the writers and will invariably reflect the way they see the world.

It is not the qualities of courage, excitability, etc in themselves, which are seen in adults too, but the way in which they manifest. I don't think you get the feeling, when you read Conan Doyle, that Holmes is basically a child. Eccentric, mercurial and often difficult, yes, but an adult. With Sherlock, you see glimpses of the child behind the mask. Sometimes it is from John's POV - the bored, hyperactive child fidgeting and asking inappropriate questions - and sometimes from Sherlock's - the vulnerable, sometimes frightened boy puzzled by the grown-up world. I find this view of Sherlock very touching, but maybe that's just my grandmotherly side coming out.....

Oh, please let them cast Anthony Head! What a wonderful thought.... Having just read the article about Moffatt, I have to say that he does sound like a prat where women are concerned. No wonder he writes much better male characters than female ones, as he clearly has no idea what actually goes on inside our heads. Maybe Molly is an archetype, emerging from the writers' subconscious minds, to say, "Women can be three-dimensional people, you know. They don't have to be either girly girls or villains...."

Sherlock is a strange mixture of knight errant and anti-hero. The original Holmes was, I think, more in the heroic mould - brave, self-sacrificing, dashing in to save the day. He did occasionally do things which would have got him into trouble if discovered, such as letting a murderer go if he sympathised with their motives, but he was a pretty noble figure. Sherlock has his forebear's virtues but he has a darker side. Obviously, there is the shooting of CAM but he also hurts the dying cabbie to force him to name Moriarty. I don't think the original Holmes would even have gone as far as drugging Watson for an experiment and then deliberately frightening him. Essentially, I believe, Sherlock is a child in many ways, and this is where he differs most from ACD's Holmes. He even sees himself, in moments of extreme stress, as a scared little boy. Far from being a man of pure, cold reason, he has many childlike qualities - impulsive, outspoken, often downright rude, excitable, bored, courageous, impatient.... There is often a sort of innocence in his character and this, juxtaposed with his brilliance and ruthlessness, is one reason why he is so complex and interesting. It is a pity that the writers can't extend that sophistication to their female characters. I don't mind so much that they take away some of Irene and Mary's active roles and have them rescued by Sherlock, because I can see they want to foreground their main character and make him the hero. I don't mind that Irene is changed from being an actress to a pro domme, as I've met a few of the latter and they were certainly strong, independent women. What I don't like is what Moftiss have done to the women's character. The original Irene was clever and determined but she was not bad. Modern Irene exploits Sherlock's protective instincts and weakness for showing off, and sells him out to Moriarty. Mary is no longer just a bright, resourceful woman, she is a killer who turns on Sherlock himself. Why did these intelligent and interesting women have to become treacherous and dangerous? To make their stories more exciting, I'm sure the authors would say. I have some sympathy with that because, when you've thought of a good plot development, you do want to run with it. Making Mary a killer and having her attempt to murder Sherlock was bound to grab our attention. The fact that even fans like us can't agree on Mary's true nature, her motives and intentions, and John's relationship with her, shows how well the strategy worked. It's at the cost of a good, sympathetic female character, though. What's next - Molly as a serial killer, hiding the bodies in the morgue at Bart's?

This criticism of the female characters arose after ASiB and obviously Moftiss have fanned the flames with their interpretation of the murder of Milverton. Those who complain that women who get into difficulties - Irene and Mary - have to be rescued by men, do have a point. The original Irene outwitted Holmes, hence his respect for her, plus an unknown female (who could have been Mary in this version) killed Milverton. As I love Sherlock himself, I rather like him in his knight errant role, gallantly (and improbably) showing up in Karachi to save Irene and sacrificing his future to protect Mary. Very noble. Quite patronising plot lines, though. I suppose you could argue that they have made Mary into a stronger character, turning her into an assassin who does not hesitate to shoot her friend. It is a long time since I read "The Sign of Four" but I don't remember her doing anything violent. I really hope they do stand the whole plot on its head and show us that CAM made the emergency call. I wouldn't be surprised if Sherlock knew all along that Mary wanted to kill him. He's quite clever, you know.....

I think I disagree for the first time If we're imagining things, then yes, season 4 will probably ignore season three's events. But if we truly see Magnussen make the call, this will probably be a major aspect in season 4. It'll lead to a major shift in the personal relationships "diagram." Mary, for example, could admit in the season finale (near death, in danger, when sacrificing for somebody else, whatever) that Sherlock's deductions painted a far nobler picture of her doings than they really were. It'd be a good way to go, a sign of character development which is followed by her disappearance. The difference between TRF and HLV is that they gave us a riddle at TRF. We had a starting point (and were shown all possible props), then we were given the solution. The question was "how." HLV is different. We don't get a riddle. Let's assume Magnussen's movements are meant to be a hint. I doubt they intended for us to notice it. On another note: I think it's pretty clear, though, that Magnussen did reach for the phone, and reached it: When Sherlock says "Mary, whatever he's gone on you...", you can see Magnussen's body behind Sherlock in the mirror. Then the camera shows Mary. Then it's back to Sherlock. Now Magnussen cannot be seen in the mirror anymore, just his arm. He bend down enough to be out of view. When Mary points her gun at Magnussen after shooting Sherlock, his head is back up, you see it in the mirror. If he didn't call the ambulance, who did he call/text that it is important enough to show it? I am pretty sure it is important for season 4. Only other possibility (which I to be honest don't like as much as the other one) is that it's a secret business partner. Who then wants to take revenge on Sherlock. Thus the need to keep Sherlock in England. Otherwise, how'd he get revenge? I've considered the fact that Magnussen recorded the conversation as evidence (blackmail material?) but it's not his style. And there were more pressing matters. Survival usually tops "the work." He could have called his guards but he must have known that Mary incapacitated them. How'd she get to him without doing so? I don't know who else would help him if he called/texted them. I imagine he doesn't have many friends. I still believe ambulance makes more sense but well. I don't entirely trust Moftiss to clear things up, as there as so many plot holes that are never sorted out. We've discussed lots of them here! (I think the most glaring is that Sherlock says he didn't know how far Jim would go, i.e. killing himself, but what would have happened if he did not die? How could he have survived Jim's demand that he kill himself, if Jim had been alive to watch him jump?) On the other hand, they do plant little clues which show up later. For instance, we were meant to notice Sherlock's untypical behaviour in TRF, i.e. playing with a ball, because it was the explanation of why John could not feel a pulse on the "corpse." Moffatt did hint about unSherlock-like behaviour and the fans had worked out the trick with the ball ages before TEH. CAM and the phone is much more subtle, so it seems more likely that, if they are going to use it in S4, they mean to spring it on us as a surprise. I would really like it if it did turn out that CAM made the call, partly because it would confirm my opinion that Mary meant Sherlock to die, and partly because it would be interestingly ironic if Sherlock killed the person who saved his life, to protect the person who tried to murder him.

999 is for fire, police and ambulance. If CAM was trying to ring the police, which would make sense, and the dispatcher heard the shot, it seems likely they would send an ambulance as well as the police. Presumably that is protocol for a possible shooting.

CAM was an eyewitness but evidently didn't shop her to the police. So he might have made the call or might have seen her make the call (in Sherlock's reconstruction, did she knock him out before or after she made the call? I can't remember). As he doesn't tell the police, it doesn't really matter. Personally, I doubt we are going to learn a lot more in S4. After all, they had a massive cliffhanger after TRF and they did not give us a definite answer to some very big questions. There are also things in TRF that, far from being answered, seem to make even less sense now. I guess we just have to live with some puzzles.