Arcadia

This is like the best thing ever.

I ran across this recently and thought some of you might find it interesting. Eris Maisel is a "life coach" who writes for Professional Artist Magazine, but other than that I have no idea what his actual credentials are, but much of this resonates with me. Another explanation besides Asperger's, sociopathy, etc. Because of where this article appeared, it refers to artists but no reason why it couldn't apply to anyone, even consulting detectives and their buds. Some excerpts: The Smart Artist: 15 Challenges You Might FaceAre you pretty intelligent? And is that a problem for you? Here are 15 challenges that smart people regularly face. 1. Living in a society and a world that disparage smartness 5. Falling prey to physical ailments and bad habits such as ... cigarette smoking that arise as they try to focus hard on an intellectual or creative problem 6. Feeling alienated from and out of sync with their culture, their family and their friends 9. Dealing with a racing brain that, because it doesn’t come with an off switch, inclines itself toward insomnia, manias, obsessions, compulsions and addictions 10. Pining for productive obsessions — juicy intellectual or artistic problems worth real time and effort — but succumbing to unproductive obsessions instead (such as watching "crap telly? - me :-) 12. Defensively using their brain’s ability to reason so as to reduce the anxiety they’re experiencing 14. Experiencing life as sadder than other people do because of their ability to comprehend the facts of existence Here's a link to the whole thing, which is really just an ad for his book. But I still found it interesting. http://www.professionalartistmag.com/news/2014/feb/04/smart-artist-15-challenges-you-face/#.UvbejWXiWA4.facebook

It has nothing to do with "popular solution in this post-911 world" and everything to do with who Sherlock Holmes is even in canon. He was not above breaking the law if he thought the situation warranted such. In the "Adventure of the Devil's Foot" he lets a murderer go free. This is hardly the only time that he would do so. He house broke at least twice. Once in "The Adventure of the Illustrious Client" and again in "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton" where Sherlock not only burgled a house but destroyed the evidence of Milverton's blackmailing to protect the victims. But none of those are the same as shooting an unarmed man in the face, surely. And I don't think "canon" is why the ending was written the way it was, anyway. This Sherlock is in the modern age, I think they are reflecting comtemporary attitudes back to us, not Victorian ones. Or I hope so, anyway. At any rate, I enjoy this show the most when it makes me uncomfortable. No, sorry, that's not true. I enjoy it most when it makes me laugh! I admire it most when it makes me uncomfortable.

Don't think so. Moftiss were careful to show us, in Many Happy Returns, that he always worked with the system. Whether he infiltrated that monastery, fed intormation to that policeman or managed to get a seat on that jury. Would've been a lot easier just to kill them for sure, but that evidently isn't how he rolls. And it just occurred to me that at the end of Sign of Three, they kinda make a point of showing that Sherlock just figures out who done it, but leaves the arresting/etc. to the authorities. I thought that little snippet was a bit odd at the time, now I think I see why it's there.

... Dat's .... jus' pitiful. lol. John is a saint, that's all I gotta say.

Yup yup yup.

Oooh, yeah. That's good, that works for me. Again, tho, the filmmakers could've SHOWN us this more clearly... Grump grump grump, this Sherlock show is hard work! You all are on a roll here, so riddle me this .... why, why, why did John have to be kept in the dark for TWO YEARS? Yeh yeh, cuz Sherlock is a git...

Heh, I just watched it too and thought the same thing. It's flimsy, but it makes a certain sense. For some reason the filmmakers thought it was more important to be ambiguous, tho, so we'll never know for sure. But I like this explanation.

Hm. I'll have to think about that some more, but I don't think I wholeheartedly believe that. Some people have such a strongly held world view that they are quite incapable of seeing thru someone else's eyes. Is it my fault as an artist/writer if they miss the point because they have not learned how to see (or don't want to see)? I agree it's the communicator's job to communicate, but it's also the listener's job to listen. Whether your audience agrees with you or not is another matter, but on some level I think they have an obligation to at least try to see what you are saying. Does this make sense? And boy, have I wandered far far from the topic. :-)

Oh, absolutely!

I had a similar thought -- Mycroft and Lady Smallwood (Littlewood?) are in on it together.....hm, maybe that's why Mycroft isn't lonely..... (sorry, it's late, I'm sleep deprived....)

Or, should I say: "Plain as day. There for all to see. Plaaaaain as the nose on your ..." (It's not the lines, it's the delivery!)

Elementary, my dears!

Yeh, I get that. But my thoughts weren't really about whether WE find John heroic, or delusional ... just that I think it was the creators' INTENT to make him heroic. That's one of many things that makes art so interesting ... what is the artist actually trying to say, as opposed to what I want them to say? And how do they choose to say it? But I'm an artist myself, my mind tends to work like that. But in purely practical, "real life" terms .... yeh, I get your point completely.

I think you are actually hitting on something that I couldn't pinpoint before. I've been an avid voice against Mary's actions, and whenever they were compared to Sherlock's murder, I couldn't put my finger on the reason why I did not feel as strongly about Magnussen's murder. Sherlock is willing to take the consequences. He doesn't try to hide his crime. Unlike Mary he faces the consequences. I do not condone his decision to murder Magnussen simply because I don't think he did anything that deserved to be killed. But Sherlock is conscious of the gravity of his actions. He also does not excuse it. That's exactly what Mary is lacking, imo. This consciousness of doing something wrong, something that is not excusable. Sherlock does it and knows it's wrong. That's why he accepts his punishment. Mary does it and expects to be in the right. And that's why she feels mistreated by John at Christmas. I'm so slow at composing my thoughts that y'all have always moved on to yet another interesting topic before I reply to an earlier one! Must. Think. Faster. At any rate, to Zain: exactly. I was appalled at Magnussen's murder (still think a better solution could have been found) but at least Sherlock was willing to accept the consequences of his actions. So even tho I don't like his solution, I can maintain respect for him as a character.

I think I agree with T.o.b.y., except that I had a slightly different take on the writer's intentions ... not that John loves Mary the way she was "supposed to be," but that he loves her (or thinks he does) simply for who she is (warm, funny, tolerant.) He decides that he knows the "real" her, and therefore her past has no relevance. No, it's not a very practical decision in real life, but yes, it is very heroic and romantic. And so much of this show hinges on notions of heroism and romanticism. Isn't that one reason we love it? John throughout has been shown to be unusually forgiving, I think. (Would that I had someone like that in MY life!) But I look on him more as an archetypal character, not a wholly realistic one. Archetypal characters tend to be more "pure" than the rest of us. I guess that's why I'm so drawn to them. Which may say more about me than it should.

"Fizzizitionofdecar ... uh, position of the car..." (Scandal)

Because he's still trying to impress Mycroft?

We do all know that Moftiss sometimes just make s**t up, right? :-)

Hmmm. Mostly I think I would like to see some exploration of the consequences of murdering Magnussen. I hate the concept of "vigilante justice" -- to me it's a cheap and lazy way to resolve a problem. I hope that's not where this story is left. It would certainly lower my opinion of not only Sherlock, but his friends, if they just wave away Magnussen's murder as a "necessary evil." But that seems to be a popular solution in this post-911 world, so I fear. Also, more Lestrade! Woefully underused this time around. :-)

I was wondering about that myself, it doesn't make sense to me. Even if there were prison riots, so what? That's why the guards are there. It just seemed to me a really lame excuse on Mycroft's part for keeping Sherlock out of prison. (And why would the other people in the room buy it? Oh well.) I have a theory that Mycroft himself is faking Moriarty's "reappearance" -- as a way of rescuing Sherlock from exile. I kinda hope so, cuz I think it would be cool to see Mycroft and Sherlock in a duel of wits. :-)

Thanks for the info, Carol!

I was trying to figure this out awhile back, the only one that seems to fit so far is Anderson. Altho he's not all that improbable. Also I note the blog hasn't been updated since Season 3 ended, I wonder what we're to make of that? (Not too much, probably. :-)

I haven't figured out how to do that "embeddy" thing yet, but this goes back to T.o.b.y's question "why was Sherlock so visibly upset, even at times when nobody was watching him?" I need to go back and watch TRF again (actually, I need to go back and watch the whole series again, because ... I want to!) but one thing I do remember thinking the last time I saw it .... I knew Sherlock wasn't going to die, and I thought he was so upset because he'd just seen a man blow his brains out right in front of him, and he, Sherlock, had essentially caused this to happen. My Dad used to be friends with a policeman who had something similar happen to him. Yes, the man who killed himself was a "bad guy," but he was also a human being, and desperate, and the policeman was shattered by witnessing a suicide literally right in front of him. He couldn't stop crying, he said. Also, Sherlock had to convince John he was a fake, and I think he really wants John to have a high opinion of him, no matter what else he might say. And finally, he was getting ready to fake his death, with all that implies (I mean, try to imagine what that must be like ... giving up everyone and everything you know for an unknown and probably unpleasant future.... in a way, it's like dying for real.) So it was believable to me that he would be as emotional as he was. What I still have trouble with is WHY he had to convince John he was a fake and a suicide, and allowed him to believe it for two years. I've seen some explanations I can accept, I just wish the writers had put the explanation into the show. I'm coming to terms with it, tho. :-)

Hi all, thanks for the welcomes. And don't be too impressed, it took me several tries to work out the second one. :-) The lack of "s's" really had me stumped for awhile too!