Slithytove

I could tolerate Mary's death very easily. She has crossed the line, as far as I'm concerned, and there's no way back. The least tolerable death would be Lestrade's. Though I would be sorry to lose Molly or Mrs Hudson or even Mycroft, I'd be appalled if they killed off the silver fox. I've always had a lot of sympathy for Lestrade, going back to the original ACD stories, and in this incarnation he is just lovely. (I hated what they did to his character in Elementary.)

Molly - mustn't die. Too nice, and totally loyal to Sherlock. Mycroft - mustn't die. Too many good lines. Mrs Hudson - No! Anderson and/or Donovan - maybe, though they're both interesting. Mary - yep, you've got to go, Mary. Don't care if they kill you off but, for the sake of the baby, better if you disappear and take the kid with you. But how....how could any dare to suggest killing off Lestrade? I love him! If anyone touches one silver hair on his head, I shall turn absolutely monstrous.

Molly has an inner core of strength, I think. I hope we see more of it. Sally's loyalty to her boss is commendable but calling someone a freak, however much you dislike them, is an ugly thing to do. I prefer the revelation that Anderson has a conscience and feels bad about his role in the Fall, even though he was only doing his job and, frankly, he had a good reason to dislike someone who was so rude to him. Like Janine, it seems he has a big heart, after all.

That's okay, you don't have to like either of them. This is one of the many good things about fictional people: You can't hurt them, so you can hate them as vehemently or irrationally as you please, and you don't have to worry about doing them an injustice. That's right. I don't like Mary now and never will, but I don't feel bad about it. And I don't like Sally either.... What does exasperate me is the idea that, if you dislike a character, you dislike the person playing it. I've read some comments - not here, I think - to the effect that, if you don't like Mary, you must resent Amanda in some way or, conversely, that you have to like Mary because Amanda is lovely. Fictional characters and actors.....they're not the same!

Really? I'd love to know exactly what's going on inside that dark little soul. No- one wakes up one morning and decides to be evil. Something makes you want to act like that. I wondered what happened to Jim. I suspect that the Holmes boys had a strange and difficult childhood, but I also suspect it was a walk in the park compared to Jim's formative years.

Tell us what you really think, Jess! I suspect so many of us like her because in a world that so often seems to value flash and brass over substance, she represents everyone who's ever been underappreciated merely because they seem ordinary. She's the underdog, and I for one will always root for the underdog! Well put! Molly is an example of substance over style. I dispute the idea that she's weak. If you were surrounded by heartbroken, grieving people, and you also had to pretend to mourn, wouldn't you be desperate to say, "Cheer up! He's not really dead!" Or at least to whisper it in John's ear.....But her loyalty to Sherlock holds out for the full two years. She is a rock, I'd say.

I'm not familiar enough with any of the other incarnations to say, but THIS Sherlock; yes, absolutely. His intellectual curiosity, his desire to transcend the ordinary, his rudeness, his love of the dramatic -- it's all very exaggerated, of course, but also very familiar to me. As is Lestrade's steadiness, John's decency and also his repressed anger, Molly's awkward loyalty .... I didn't mean to imply that I only like characters who resemble me. Rather, I like characters that illuminate what I understand the human condition to be. No, Moriarty's not one of those, and in fact I'm not much of a fan of his; there's not much to learn from him, except in the way he complements/contrasts Sherlock. I'm probably not explaining myself very well, sorry. It's a bit nebulous even in my own mind. Ah, but the rabbits didn't act like rabbits, did they? (One of my favorite books, by the way!) It wasn't realistic, they had human characteristics that the readers could relateU to. That's why it works, imo. If Hazel had had the intellect of a real rabbit, it would have been a pretty dull read! Do you think rabbits would have bought the book en masse? I think most of them would have said, "I don't get it - it doesn't reflect my personal experience of bunniness at all. I don't think or feel that way." There would, however, be some who said, "I like to read about rabbit life which is new to me. What do you make of Fiver?". But probably not enough readers to make a bunny best seller. As for Moriarty - my guess would be that, if you could look into his mind, you'd find recognisable human emotions there. No-one becomes a monster for no reason. There are feelings there, somewhere beneath the cruelty and the madness. I suspect there is a lot of pain and probably a lot of fear, and feelings of rage (and maybe loneliness), deep in Jim's psyche. Not that this excuses him being a mass murderer, but something turned him into the man he is. If you could uncover that reason, it would probably shine a very powerful light on the human condition.

Leaving aside the fact that Molly would have to be highly intelligent to have such an important job in a renowned institution like Bart's, it's a mistake to judge a book by its cover. Just because she has a shy manner and not much dress sense doesn't mean she can't be loyal, brave, bright and determined - the qualities which Sherlock evidently values in John. She's the one who sees Sherlock's sadness - at the wedding as well as before the Fall - and the one he turns to for help. She keeps his secret for two years. She's also the only one who understands his personality well enough to realise how much he's going to struggle with his wedding speech. She has the scientific knowledge to help him in his work. In many ways, she'd be an excellent match for him (if he wasn't gay ) So she gets flustered sometimes, because she's crazy about him....Well, cut the girl some slack. Who woudn't get in a bit of a flap in the presence of Sherlock? Janine as a partner for Sherlock? Nah. Shrewd and tough, with her eye on the main chance, and very worldly but no genius. Sherlock does a lousy thing, pretending to propose to her, and she manages to forgive him after she gets back at him, which shows a big heart...but Mrs Sherlock Holmes? No. She's too ordinary. Irene, however, isn't ordinary at all. Very clever, very ruthless, very good-looking, doesn't care how people judge her....She's a perfect match, in many ways. And he did go halfway across the world to save her. So, could the pro domme be the one for the consulting detective? Maybe. But I 'm still voting for John.....

Well, I mean, John (kind of) forgave Sherlock for The Fall. And that was a horrible, terrible thing to do to your best friend - to any friend, really. So John seems to have quite a capacity for - I won't call if forgiveness, exactly. Because I don't have the impression that he's really truly forgiven Sherlock. He's just... moved on. And he does the same with Mary. With her, he even admits he's still "pissed off". He just wants to give their relationship a chance to survive. I don't even believe the reasons for that are entirely unselfish. Say what you will, but I think John really, really loves Mary. I think she's a dream come true for him, and he's simply not willing to let that dream go, even after it's been partly shattered. I don't know if it's my love for the original (where I don't care for Miss Morstan at all, so probably no), or the amazing chemistry between the actors, but I do feel that John and Mary are "meant to be". They just have this quality, found (I think) only in fiction, where two people simply belong together, against all odds if need be. They just belong. This does not mean I expect or even necessarily want them to last for ever, but it does mean that I'll take a lot of getting back and staying together without blinking an eyelash. Can't help feeling that John is storing up mental health issues, and possibly physical ones too, with all this repressed anger. How long can you keep moving on and trying to ignore your own feelings? I have to say that, although I agree that the Fall was a horrible, terrible thing to do, I think that shooting someone and leaving them to die in agony is more horrible and more terrible. And I can't help feeling that John and Sherlock are "meant to be" - from Sherlock's perspective, at least. Sorry, something seems to have gone wrong with "Quote", here....

But does Sherlock, in any of his incarnations from Victorian days to modern times, relate to your experience of human nature? I doubt that there are many people around who act, and interact with others, in the peculiar way that he does. And there are even less people around who are like Moriarty, thank God....To be honest, I think a lot of characters in the original books acted in a way that strained credulity to the very limit, and the same applies to all subsequent versions, but you can enjoy them because they are so preposterous, even though the humanity they portray is very far from being realistic. To be honest, I don't really see the point of always watching films and reading books that don't challenge our understanding of human nature. If all the characters think as we think, feel as we feel and act as we act, what's the point? Yes, sometimes it's nice to read/watch a piece of fiction and think, "Yeah, me too" but it's also good to imaginatively live other people's lives which are far from our own. For example, a lot of people (though not me, in this instance) are fascinated by Hannibal Lector, though it's unlikely that the desire to kill and eat people accords with their personal experiences of human nature. To take an even more extreme example, "Watership Down" was a bestseller but its readership didn't consist of rabbits...

So, basically, John can have sex (with a woman) but Sherlock can't? Poor boy.

Agreed! Sometimes stuff just comes down to life experiences, I think. I've never knowingly encountered the kind of relationship you describe (why would I? Most people don't share their inner selves with complete strangers like me. ) -- but now that I've read your comment, it makes sense to me that such situations would exist. It's just harder for me to wrap my head around because I don't have the experience to base it on, I have to rely on imagination. And I'm afraid my imagination is better at puzzling out what color a unicorn's eyes would be than it is at puzzling out human nature. (I imagine a unicorn's eyes would be glasz colored .... guess what? When you "bing" glasz to find out how it's spelled, you also get photos of Benedict Cumberbatch..... squeee!) That's what fiction is for - to let us make an imaginative leap into other people's heads. Most of us won't ever get to live the same physical and/ or emotional experiences undergone by fictional characters, but that's exactly why they are so interesting. For example, few of us (none, I hope) are likely to commit murder but we can still follow the emotional turmoil of Raskolnikov in "Crime and Punishment". We're unlikely to be loved by an arrogant, wealthy aristocrat but we can share the experience in "Pride and Prejudice". And that's just a couple of examples from the classics.....Modern literature, and modern drama, teems with stories which invite us to jump inside the hearts and minds of people we'll never be, doing things we'll never do. You're right, human nature is a puzzle - and fiction is one of the keys for unlocking that puzzle. In my own case, I don't find it hard to imagine the reasons why people fall in love with very unlikely partners. I find it much more difficult to understand the reasons why you might carry on loving someone who has badly hurt another person you care about, which is why I struggle with John in HLV. To me, that plot development is much harder to take than the idea that John and Sherlock ( or Sherlock and Molly or whatever) are lovers. Not going to stop watching, though - it is exactly the unpredictability, the sense that the story could go anywhere, that keeps me hooked. If you want predictability, I suggest Downton Abbey. I could write those plot developments long before they happen!

I used to be very patronising about fan fiction until I started reading some of the Sherlock stuff on archiveofourown.org and realised some of it was very well written. Of course, it varies in quality - some people have more enthusiasm than talent - but some is very good indeed. Some is slash, some isn't, some is explicit and some isn't, and some stories take the boys into areas ACD never imagined. (Vampires? Angels? Werewolves?) Anyway, I've read very, very few stories - and I've read a lot - which I would consider to be written to demean the characters or hurt any of the people involved in the show. If anything, the fault lies in the other direction. Many people who write Johnlock clearly adore both characters and tend to give Sherlock's character a sweetness and tenderness not found in the onscreen portrayal. I'd say that Sherlock does seem to be a man who hides his vulnerability under a facade of rudeness and indifference, but the fanfic Sherlock is sometimes a bit too tearful and a bit too lovey-dovey to be in character. Doesn't put me off - only bad writing does that - but it makes me smile, thinking "Somehow I can't imagine Sherlock being so nice...."

I said exactly why I would stop watching. I implore you to read my post in it's entirety & you will see has nothing to do with gay bashing. I was really detailed & even mentioned had no problem with gay relationships on television. Also posted another comment about how the writers would really need to explain or pretty rewrite the entire show. I was detailed about that as well. I am not into politics when it comes to entertainment. Certainly I wouldn't expect the people on this forum to be homophobic. I would be disappointed if my expectations were proved wrong. I did read your post, and the other comments regarding the unacceptability of Johnlock becoming part of the show, and it does sadden me that anyone feels they would stop watching if it featured a gay relationship between John and Sherlock. Sometimes I feel we haven't made as much progress over the years as we like to imagine, when same-sex relationships are still regarded as more controversial than heterosexual ones, in mainstream culture. There is absolutely no reason why a show that starts with a friendship between two apparently straight men cannot develop that relationship into a romance, without any need to apologise, explain, re-write or whatever. (Incidentally, I don't think Sherlock does appear to be particularly straight, but that's just my opinion.). One of the strengths of fiction is that it can be full of twists and turns and it can take us anywhere. If it is well done, it can surprise us and yet seem right, and not out of character. Several people have said they object to sexuality being introduced into stories which do not originally contain it. In my opinion, it is such a significant part of people's lives that it would seem strange to wholly exclude it. That doesn't mean that the storylines have to be explicit. After all, we don't see any sexual activity between John and Mary - not even much kissing - but I think we can safely assume they are intimate with one another. I would be extremely surprised (to put it mildly!) if the show ever included explicit sexual behaviour between John and Sherlock. In the unlikely event of Johnlock becoming canon, the relationship between the two men needn't be any more graphic than the love between Mary and John. I know that people will say that their main objection would be to the sexualisation of a platonic friendship. Maybe it wouldn't be to everyone's taste - storylines do go off at angles which we don't always like. (John forgiving Mary for harming Sherlock....need I say more? Still grinding my teeth over that one!). But, to be frank, I don't think people would be reacting so strongly if we were talking about a straight relationship. If Sherlock became seriously involved with Janine or Molly or Irene, lots of viewers wouldn't like it because it interferes with their view of him as an asexual loner ( or, as far as we Johnlockers are concerned, a gay man in love with someone else) but how many people would stop watching? Really? If Sherlock Holmes in Elementary started sleeping with Joan Watson, a lot of people might say " Hey, Sherlock wouldn't do that" ( though it's made clear that this version of Holmes is sexually active) but would people turn off their tvs? Would the gut reaction against the relationship be so strong? To be honest, I doubt it.

Of course. That John could be straight goes without saying. However, my comment was a response to the people who insist that he can't be gay because he says he isn't. I was just pointing out that some people have problems coming to terms with their sexuality, others haven't worked it out yet, and others are bi. And some just fall in love with one special person whom they love so much that gender ceases to matter. Sometimes the heart wants what it wants. As for the right to argue.....Well, Sherlock keeps saying he's a sociopath but most of us don't take him at his word!

A piece of fiction which is not primarily concerned with a romantic relationship, but does feature a developing romance, doesn't have to be boring. It depends entirely on the quality and originality of the writing. In my opinion, the writing talent behind the creation of Sherlock is strong enough to produce a fresh and exciting storyline if they did decide to include a love story between their main characters - not that I think they ever will, for reasons already stated. Of course, it also requires brilliant acting, but I think we can take that for granted. As for the idea that a character can't suddenly change his feelings about his own sexuality, without it seeming like a cheap trick....Well, it happens all the time in reality. People decide to stop denying aspects of themselves, or they discover new aspects they had not previously experienced. Sexual orientation isn't set in stone. I've already cited the example of my friend Anthony, who was so deeply in denial about his homosexuality that he was in a heterosexual marriage for several years, and had two kids, before coming out. He is now happily married to Rupert ( his ex-wife also remarried, I'm glad to say) and now speaks as if he finds the idea of sex with a woman unthinkable. For him, coming out as gay after years of denial wasn't a cheap soap opera twist, it was real life. It does happen. There are also a great many people who indeed are not gay, but they are not straight either. Why shouldn't John be bisexual? In fact, why shouldn't Sherlock? Maybe he was attracted to both Irene and John. Why not? Human sexuality is vast and varied, not one-size-fits-all. You don't have to sign up for heterosexuality and never be allowed to change. Above all, is there any reason why John couldn't be telling the truth when he says he is isn't gay, because he doesn't see himself as a man attracted to his own gender, but still be in love with Sherlock - just because Sherlock is Sherlock? Irene makes this point when she suggests that John as a straight man is, like herself as a gay woman, drawn to Sherlock. I find it very easy to believe that someone as unique as Sherlock - as brilliant and beautiful - could be charismatic enough to enchant people who do not normally identify as attracted to men. I'm perfectly happy if Johnlock never becomes canon and Sherlock remains, as T.o.b.y. suggests, a complex, solitary character. I would be equally happy - though incredibly surprised! - if it was canon and the writers took us through all the passion and the chaos, the joys and the pain, of sex and love between two difficult, unpredictable and strong-willed people. It could be fascinating.... But it's never going to happen.

I agree that the subtle aspects of John and Sherlock's relationship are intriguing, and I'm personally happy with the way it's treated at the moment - open to interpretation, complex and interesting, with the occasional hint that there might be more to the friendship than is ever expressed by either man. I'm just saddened by some of the reactions to the whole idea of Johnlock, to the extent of some rejecting the programme altogether if the characters were in a gay relationship. In some ways it seems to be true that it is " always 1895", at least where anything other than vanilla heterosexuality is concerned.

True -- but they often do stop watching eventually, when the show goes downhill because that "will they or won't they" tension had been a key element of its appeal. I personally like that bit of "aUre they or aren't they" humor and tension in Sherlock, though I'm reasonably certain that they're not. Come to think of it, if I thought they really were sexually attracted to each other, I might find some of the humor to be in questionable taste, borderline gay-bashing. Odd. Sorry, have to quote individually. Frightened of Multiquote. I agree that sometimes the vigour goes out of a narrative when the sexual t.ension is resolved. Not always, though. With good writers and good actors - and I think we can agree Sherlock's got both - a passionate relationship at the heart of a story can add depth and richness. Never going to happen, though. Too many of the audience won't accept it, when the lovers are both men, particularly iconic men such as Holmes & Watson.

I don't think that any of us here has a problem with gay relationships on tv. The problem is that when there are two flatmates with the same sex, people automaticaly think they are gay even when they're not. If John and Sherlock had declared that they were gay right in the beginning and lived together as a couple, I think it would have been fine, at least for me. But I wouldn't like it if they did it now after John had said like thousand times that he wasn't gay and even got married to a woman. If he suddenly realized he was gay after all and fell in love with Sherlock who would suddenly find out that he loves John too more than just a friend... I don't know, it would look very cheap and for me it would degrade the show to a sappy soap opera. I think that flatmates of the opposite sex would face the same assumption, perhaps even more frequently than same-sex friends. Why would it be better if gay characters declared their orientation from the beginning? Why can't their relationships develop gradually over time like other people's? For a start, they might not be attracted to each other in the beginning. Or they might be unsure of the other person's feelings. Or one of them might have a stronger attraction than the other. Or one of them - or both - might be shy. Or might have unresolved issues about their sexuality - it does happen, even to adults who have been in different types of relationships. There are a great many reasons why two people's relationship might develop gradually and I don't see anything cheap or soap-opera-ish about it. People can and do fall in love, over time, with their friends. It happens with men and women, so why not with two men? What is cheap about that?

I suspect I am a lot older than most of you, and remember a time when "the love that dare not speak its name" really didn't dare, for fear of prison, discrimination and/or physical violence. Since those days, I've seen the development of Pride, the tragedy (and cruel gay-baiting comments) of the AIDS era, the introduction of civil partnerships and the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and the general acceptance of LGBT people as equal members of society. So I feel sad when people say they would stop watching if Sherlock & John were in a gay relationship. For God's sake, why? Yes, of course most people in same-sex friendships aren't romantically involved. Ditto opposite-sex friendships. Yes, most of us have had dimwits assume our same-sex friend is our lover - and the same sort of dimwits will make the same assumption about our opposite-sex friend. So what? Who cares? The point is, a great many films and tv shows are based around a man and a woman who are friends/colleagues but might also be attracted to each other. The "will-they-won't-they" of sexual attraction and the powerful emotions generated by unspoken love are old and popular fictional tropes and they are used all the time. Sometimes the desire is hinted at but left unexpressed, and sometimes it is declared and the characters become lovers - but how many people stop watching a show because the male and female leads begin a relationship? Damn few, I suspect. Not so when the lead characters are the same sex. That is why I think Johnlock will never be canon, because a large sector of the audience would vanish overnight. Personally, I don't care whether Johnlock ever becomes canon or not. The assumption that Holmes and Watson are gay or bisexual is nearly as old as the characters themselves, and it has always made sense to me that Holmes loved Watson even if the good doctor was never aware of it, but I am perfectly happy to interpret Sherlock's behaviour as a deeply-repressed love for John. Conversely, in the unlikely event that it ever became canon, I would be delighted that a gay relationship was at the heart of a show that wasn't all about gay relationships - that it could be about a happily married crime fighting duo that happens to consist of two men. That would be progress, in my opinion.

I think people are over-estimating the importance of the Holmes family being country squires. It doesn't necessarily mean they would have a great estate to manage, with the oldest son inheriting the property and the duty to manage it whilst the younger sons go out into the world to earn a living. "Country squire" can cover a wide variation of wealth and power. Some can live in quite modest circumstances. When I was a child, we lived next door to the last of the line of our local squires. He was a rather timid elderly man, living in a very ordinary house and mainly supported by the earnings of his wife, who was a hairdresser. Country squires don't all live in Downton Abbey. I've always assumed that the Holmes family weren't one of the great aristocratic families, who might well expect their eldest son to run the estate and the others to go into politics/the army/the church, but one of the modest but respectable families who, in Victorian times, formed the backbone of Middle England.

Some women are stalwarts during pregnancy though, to be fair, the sickness is usually worst during the earlier months. I wasn't too bad but I don't think I would have wanted to scale the side of a building or knock out a security guard....and I speak as the mum of two daughters who both suffered awful morning sickness with each of our six grandkids. To balance the stories of women who went through pregnancy without batting an eye, I'll just mention my poor daughter who was mortified when, four months pregnant, she was stuck in traffic and had to be sick in a plastic bag in front of a bus queue of schoolchildren and a restaurant full of diners.....

Not an excuse, just a reason. She was in an untenable situation where she had to do something immediately, so that wasn't her carefully-thought-out decision, it was her gut reaction. Bad choice, but I can understand why she'd react that way. To be honest, I can't. You'd have to be a completely ruthless person - which is fine, because her character is a professional killer and therefore would be ruthless, but I can't understand how John could forgive her. In fact, I can't really understand how he can carry on loving her.

Even if there is another exit from the penthouse, "the way she came in" must pass through the area where Janine and the guard are, or how did she attack them? And that is the area where John is, when she leaves. From an ethical point of view, there isn't a huge difference between "I killed him" and "I inflicted a life-threatening injury on him.". Fundamentally, you have no justification for harming someone unless there is a direct threat to your own or someone else's life. Shooting someone because you think you might get caught and go to prison, and your husband might find out the truth, doesn't fall into that category. It's interesting that Amanda thinks that Mary's fear gives her an excuse, but I think actors probably want their characters to be popular with the audiences anyway. Not necessarily good - Moriarty is obviously evil and insane, but a strong character with a lot of fans - but popular, and presumably she was glad the writers gave Mary the "surgery" excuse, even though it's ridiculous. I suspect there will also be a sob story in S4 about how and why she became an assassin. Personally, I don't care if she has had a heart-breaking past, or if she is a saint in the future - you can't get round the fact that she shot an unarmed, defenceless man.