Boswell

Yes, and I realize I was responding not to the content of sittything's post per se, but to the insinuation i perceived somewhere thereabouts that Sherlock may have felt a twinge of loss (though by now i'm open to the possibility that i may've been hallucinating)

I think it's just compassion showing on Sherlock's face there, not loss. He realised in ASiB that Molly was in love with him, but he also knew it would always be unrequited - he may be her type, but she certainly is not his * - and therefore feels guilty about his habit of taking advantage of her feelings to get her to do things for him. This is evident in the scene where she turns up at the morgue to show him 'Irene's' body; he's feeling really sorry for having completely ruined her Christmas in every possible way. I think initially he just saw her as yet another 'idiot', a foolish woman who allowed her feelings to put her at a disadvantage, but gradually saw that she wasn't really stupid, that she had her merits which is why he chose to entrust her with the huge responsibility of facilitating his fake suicide and keeping quiet about it. And upon his return, he can see that she is clearly still in love with him although she's bravely trying to get over it (though that may never happen, because there's only one Sherlock Holmes in the world), and so he feels a lot of compassion for her - which is in sync with the 'humanising Sherlock' theme of this whole series. (* - and if the makers ever take the smallest step towards a Sherlock-Molly pairing, I might just stop following BBC Sherlock)

Ok I'll try to come up with a coherent reply to your question, but in the meantime I'm still curious about why you thought attributing Sherlock's fake death plan, including keeping John in the dark, to Mycroft makes Mycroft seem two-dimensional - the original discussion we were trying to have in that other thread

A reply i posted on another thread started me off on a mini-exposition of how I see Mycroft's character: as someone more evolved, for lack of a better word, than Sherlock. He's not simply smarter than Sherlock, he's also wiser. Mycroft and Sherlock use their intellectual gifts in vastly different ways - for Sherlock, his intellect is his defining characteristic, for Mycroft it is a resource, one of several, which he puts to use in achieving his life's aim, namely heightening his power. This interpretation I have of Mycroft as a power centre draws, of course, from BBC Sherlock and The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. Doyle's original Mycroft may or may not lend himself to this interpretation, in fact Doyle appears to hint that Mycroft is simply the smarter but lazier brother, but I like the new dimension added by TPLoSH and, therefore, BBC Sherlock. Mycroft says of Sherlock that he could have been a philosopher or scientist yet he chooses to be a detective. I take that to mean that Sherlock is content to bask in the glow of his intellectual powers, in and of themselves - as a musician would enjoy his music for it's own sake - even though those intellectual powers afford Sherlock the potential to expand the boundaries of his personality and be 'more', as it were. Like a musician, Sherlock needs the acknowledgement of a knowledgeable and appreciative audience, whereas Mycroft is completely secure and self-aware, knows just how good he is and has no need for external 'approval'; he has sufficiently mastered himself to be able to use his intellect in ways that allow him to influence everything in his circle of concern. He is no ordinary ladder climber either, it is not mere position that he craves but actual power, preferably stripped of all its trappings. Unlike Sherlock or Moriarty, who are rockstars/drama queens, Mycroft does not enjoy the limelight but prefers to be the unseen hand working the levers that matter. And, as I said in that other thread, Mycroft truly believes he is not lonely. He has transcended the need for companionship, possibly because he may have given up on the possibility of there existing anyone that matches his intellect and his philosophy. Sherlock may find a worthy companion in John, but the two are hardly equally matched. Mycroft's emotional needs are not so great as to make him 'lower' his standards for a companion, and he finds human attachments to be mere temporary distractions from his life's true purpose. In that respect he is almost sage-like. Yet he is aware of his attachment to Sherlock, he thinks Sherlock - and Sherlock alone - has the potential to be like himself and therefore is drawn to protecting, and hopefully 'improving' Sherlock, triggering the Big Brotherly behaviour pattern, which I suspect annoys Mycroft himself as much as it does Sherlock because he knows he does it out of an almost-compulsive attachment than any other 'higher' purpose.

S.D., why do you think that explanation makes Mycroft look 2-d? To me it seems very much in-character. Mycroft is essentially a power centre and all his faculties are directed at sustaining or enhancing that position, with the realisation that human attachment is a weakness that only serves to distract one from one's purpose. His detachment is the result of deep contemplation and high philosophy, and i think he really means it when he says "I'm not lonely, Sherlock" (I almost hear him add, "you will never get it, will you?") He is not lonely because he believes he has transcended the need for companionship, though he is aware of his attachment to his brother which I think annoys him. I could go on but i'm sure this belongs in another thread so maybe i'll find it and continue there, and I'd really like to know your thoughts on this one.

That, Toby, was amazing!

Agree with 'show about a detective rather than detective show'...the Holmesian universe is what it is because of that magical persona (obviously) But 'not even sure I want a series 4 at all' : how could you?! :'( If I could live with series 3, a series 4 or even 5 wont kill me. In fact I probably really need those; after all, how long can my sanity be expected to sustain on just rewatching episodes, reading transcripts, and discussing on forums? Coming back to wishlists: two small additions - (1) more scenes set in 221B E.g. client interactions, and (2) significant improvement in John's typing speed (Please Mr Freeman, there are any number of tutorials online that can bring you up to speed (literally) in a short time)

Toby, I like how you raised a question I've wondered about too, and then proceeded to answer it yourself in such a lovely subtle way Helps me make some sense of it too The look on Sherlock's face at the graveyard after John's little speech seems to me to say "painful, perhaps, but can't be helped; and it's no big deal anyway because i'm going to make it all okay very soon... SO on to the next step in my brilliant plan"

Yes it's a good bait, but I think it should stay just that - bait - and not be allowed to take over a whole episode or dominate a series.. The clever intricacy of plot construction is what makes me just stand back in awe and marvel at the brilliance of it.

Thanks for sharing, great article that; also the one that it links to, which even states boldly what was a mere suspicion deep down in my hazy, Sherlocked mind - that Moffat's writing is a little too dramatic for Sherlock. Maybe Sue Vertue should make an executive decision that all episodes henceforth should be either written or co-written by Gatiss, he seems to be the master of plot construction. Aside from that, it says there will be a Series 5 as well ...hope springs eternal

That's pretty much my wishlist too; the only thing i would add is more references to the books; in a meaningful, natural way, like they did with Hounds of Baskerville.

Black Lotus Tong ?

What? Where? How? I mean, could you share a link/pic please?

My own experience with this show (for it is nothing short of an experience) seems to have been a close parallel to that of SH’s in the series. First analytical, then bordering the edges of emotion, then proper sentiment, then distraction and even loss of productivity, then realization and learning, and now back to normal. I hope SH’s trajectory in the series includes that last part. I've liked Sherlock for its sheer intelligence and the lovely interlacing of the modern with the original. I don’t want to be drawn into any of the so-called homoerotic subtext nonsense anymore because that is beside the point, and I sincerely hope the writers will cut the crap and come back to basics...and do it quite quickly please

I think one of the great advantages of having a 'Special' is that by virtue of being a one-off it is not subject to the same logical boundaries as the rest of the series. I am therefore looking forward to seeing Moriarty in the Special. It would be really interesting to see how Andrew Scott interprets the 'shock and awe' of his character in the Victorian context. As to the Blue Carbuncle, i think key elements of it have already been used in The Empty Hearse (the 'hat' deductions) and the Hounds of Baskerville (the bet as a bait).

One of the writers has also been reported as saying that the Victorian era lends itself rather well to ghost stories. I haven't read all of the books, so not sure if there's anything there in the realm of horror, besides the Hound?

Wonderful summary

I am glad to hear somebody even thought of giving poor Sherlock/Cumberbatch a different summer coat. Yes the Belstaff is sacred, but it shouldn't be used in vain. I almost physically feel the discomfort when i see that coat in certain scenes where it obviously doesnt belong (can't think of any examples right now) especially when seen in contrast to John's much more comfy attire. Also, a random thought that just flitted by - A.G.R.A. could actually be Amanda Abbington's real initials e.g. Amanda Gertrude Ruth Abbington (why not, if SH can be William Sherlock Scott Holmes) :D

Not that I want to see that change, of course, I don't want a 'nice' Sherlock And in any case I don't think he is intentionally rude or does things calculated to make others feel bad. He just avoids sugarcoating his opinions or being hypocritical in any way. Come to think of it, that's what I like best about Sherlock, his absolute lack of hypocrisy.

He is taken too far in BBC Sherlock, but not, I think, in the original stories. It is one of the few things I dislike about BBC Sherlock, that they've reduced him to being just a stubborn child, who is a genius but weak nevertheless, and whom everyone has to indulge. BBC Sherlock's emotional calibration is inconsistent, not only with the original, but even within individual episodes. In Series 3 for example, we are expected to believe that Sherlock has emotionally 'matured', as an explanation for all the open affection he's shown indulging in, right from TEH to HLV. And yet, they give him childish, unnecessarily 'cute' scenes like the one where he goes "Did I do it wrong?" and the one where he treats his parents with not even basic civility.

Blame Mycroft, by all means, but I think Sherlock's attitude towards emotion, caring, "getting involved" etc is actually pretty reasonable. After all, his job revolves around human beings committing terrible crimes and / or becoming the victims of terrible crimes. If he felt for everybody involved, if he let the horrible things he sees daily and concerns himself with get to him, he would not be able to go on with his work. He'd be an emotional wreck in a hospital, and wouldn't do anybody any good any more. Also, to be as good at his profession as he is, he has to rely on his observational and deductive skills, and those can, and as we have seen with Mary, will be negatively affected by the bias of affection. Sherlock Holmes can only be Sherlock Holmes if he is somewhat detached from other human beings and keeps his human emotions well under control. It's the price he pays for being so exceptionally good at what he does. Like he says, he is "married to his work". It makes the character at once remarkable and tragic. But you can't have everything. I agree with that, T.o.b.y. It is not necessarily tragic that a person is emotionally detached from the subject of his work while being dedicated to the work itself. It is in fact quite an advantage to be able to do that, which is one of the reasons I and so many others admire the character of Sherlock Holmes.

I am impressed with Freeman's open support of the BBC and his arguments in its defence. He comes across as a very straightforward, upright sort of person. I am not familiar enough with the political climate in Britain and therefore have no idea what the possible ramifications are, but I guess not many actors riding a success wave would be willing to stand up to government measures like this.

Yes that guessing game I've wondered about too. So Sherlock does think John is clever, in addition to "nice-ish", but also that John "rubs people up the wrong way" - now WHY would he think that, considering John is the one who is forever trying to get Sherlock to behave with some semblance of sociability? And since it's a scene that mentions Madonna, I'm reminded how I really wish they had made Sherlock a little more attuned to the world of music, as he is in the original stories. As things stand, his playing the violin is almost just a prop, used only to make him look sad in ASIB and tragic in TSOT.

Re. Holmes' depression, I liked how he credits Watson with "bringing me back from the brink". Also, I was intrigued that he refers to Watson as "John" - didn't folks use last names only circa 1880s?

I was never a JohnLocker (never thought I’d even use the term-ever!) but I did notice in TEH that John, in a close-up shot, does not shake his head vehemently but, rather strangely, nods when he tells Mrs. Hudson that Sherlock was not his boyfriend (Apologies if this has been raised before). I noticed it particularly because it recalled to me the observation I’ve read that often when people lie they shake their heads even as they say “yes” or nod their heads when saying “no”-the physical (real) response contradicting the verbal lie. I am quite sure John’s nod was totally intentional on the part of the writers. It may be that I’m spending far too much time on forums like these, and it certainly feels as though my brain is getting washed in all this JohnLock froth. When I originally watched the episodes, there was no gay subtext jumping out at me–I found the actual gay jokes an annoying & puerile digression–but all the meta I’ve since read sounds like a convincing set of ‘deductions’ made by viewers based on what the writers deliberately chose to put on screen. Those deductions do make for interesting reading. Some of it is even quite touching, I have to say. I now think that the writers are playing a double game, wanting one set of viewers (actual or potential johnlockers) to see something very different from what the other set of viewers would. I also see now that the writers deliberately chose to devote all of Series 3 to this JohnLock theory (starting with the inexplicable line "I don't care HOW you did it, I want to know WHY"), which is why everything else about Sherlock Holmes–the original literary character as generations of fans have known him–took a backseat in series 3. And therefore I’m keeping my expectations of Series 4 very very low. Even in the canon I seem to see such hints: the stories Doyle wrote after having had to resurrect Holmes on public demand appear to contain more familiarity and ‘intimacy’ (in the language of the time) than the ones before. In “The Empty House”, for example, Holmes takes Watson’s hand/wrist/arm, or vice versa, so often you can’t help noticing. In “Charles Augustus Milverton”, similar physicality is described when Holmes and Watson hide behind a curtain. In several stories before "The Final Problem", Doyle does describe Holmes’ physical features, particularly his hands and eyes, but the only mention of physical contact that I recall is when Mary Morstan holds Watson’s wrist ("Sign of the Four"). The conclusion I am led to is that readers of that era also had JohnLockers in their midst, and their demands were persistent enough for Doyle to humour them as Mofftiss are doing now with the TV audience. Maybe Series 4 will also be one long soap opera/romcom ending in the duo getting married. And I will heal myself by rewatching "Mr. Holmes".