Artemis

I was just coming here to say this, lol. Aside from what you already said, we have Sherlock using John as a "lab rat" in HOB. I read somewhere that part of juxtaposing Sherlock and Eurus in TFP was to demonstrate what Sherlock could have been without "sentiment" and emotional maturation. (Not entirely sure I like or agree with that idea, if that indeed was the purpose, but in any case...) I don't know if the human experiment parallel was intentional, but it struck me as being vaguely reminiscent. Something I found ironic in HOB upon a rewatch was when Sherlock said, "Childhood trauma masked by an invented memory. Boring!" I wonder if the writers remember they had him say that, lol. I am actually pretty sure that's the case - and I think it's perfectly fine as long as the finished product tells a decently coherent story. Same. I definitely don't think they had it planned out from the beginning. I don't think they even started until series 3, and then drew from past material to make it fit together. I tend to like it better it when it is planned, partly because I just think it's harder because you have to be smarter, so I appreciate the brilliance of it more; partly because I feel more satisfied seeing a long-unfolding arc come to fruition; but mainly because it seems more cohesive. Some of series 4 lacked cohesion for me, it actually felt like they were trying too hard to make it seem like it all connected. Some things seemed forced, or precipitous, and I didn't really buy it. (By comparison, I thought the Moriarty arc which began in episode 1 and carried through the end of series 2 was much more cohesive and climactic. After series 2 is when I got the feeling they weren't exactly sure where they were going with it anymore, especially in light of where it actually ended up going in series 4.) I'm not bothered that they didn't have it planned, though. And speaking as a writer, it's not always possible. Sometimes it's difficult to maintain ideas you've had from the beginning, because plot and characters take on a life of their own and evolve in ways you didn't expect. One minor example of this in "Sherlock" is that Molly was never meant to be a regular character. We were never supposed to see her again after the opening scene of ASiP, but something clicked, and she became a representative for besotted Sherlock swooners everywhere, lol. And then she became a little more. And suddenly she was making the main character's survival possible. And now it wouldn't be quite the same show without her.

I don't know about anyone else, but my knowledge of the ACD story that HLV was based on heavily influenced my perception of Magnussen's shooting. In Doyle's story, Milverton (Magnussen) disgusts Holmes more than any other criminal he's encountered. In the middle of burglarizing Milverton's house to try and retrieve blackmail letters for a client, a victim of Milverton's shoots Milverton. Watson moves to stop it, but Holmes holds him back. The next morning, when Lestrade asks Holmes to look into the murder, he refuses, and even pokes a little fun. My understanding of the Milverton story is that the overarching theme is actually one of moralism. These are a few quotes I grabbed from the Wikipedia page: Having known this, I was approaching HLV from the perspective of it being largely a moral question, rather than having any expectations of intellectualism taking precedence. The question I was waiting to see explored was not "How will Sherlock outwit this villain," but "What would Sherlock do when faced with an unstoppable villain that needs to be stopped?" I thought there was an interesting ethical dilemma presented in this episode that had been mirrored in ASiP. In ASiP, he could have called for the police and had the cabbie arrested immediately, stopping it all right there. Instead, he chose to get in the cab and "play the game", risking himself and others who could have become future victims if he had lost. He chose to gratify his curiosity and his need to prove himself cleverest. In HLV, he puts those needs aside and makes a different choice; and one could argue, an actually more moral one. No doubt he could have let Magnussen get away and continued working to catch him using his intellect; but how many more people would have been hurt in the interim? Considering Doyle's own "no tolerance", and that Doyle's Holmes watched/let Milverton get shot and didn't give a fig, and then adding in the fact that in HLV, the clients/victims were not only relative strangers but also John and Mary and Mycroft, it doesn't seem entirely out of character to me that Sherlock would make the decision to shoot him. I think this also raises the interesting moral question of whether there are some people so vile, who spread so much pain and ruin, that they need to be taken out by whatever means necessary rather than allowed to continue. Whether we personally think CAM was one of those people is up to each of us, but apparently Sherlock did, and I can't say I'd judge him for it. Despite his personal feelings towards Magnussen and his flippancy afterwards, I didn't get the impression that it was an easy decision for him. He was incredibly quiet and unmoving for an abnormally long time between being shown Magnussen's "vaults" and actually killing him. He had that "thousand-yard stare", if you will.

Very. On second thought, I should probably be more specific, lol. This is basically how I pronounce the word "worm": "Germ" rhymes with it. And in my American brain, so does "erm" when I read it, even though I know how it's supposed to sound when said by a British person. It's hard to describe. Removing the "r" from the equation, I'd say it's sort of like the difference between "ehm" and "uhm" or "eh" and "uh" for us, though perhaps with slightly less pronounced of a difference. "Um" is deeper, in a sense. Here are a couple articles Google rendered on the subject, if anyone's interested. I'd go more in-depth if I had time: http://mentalfloss.com/article/67573/why-do-americans-say-uh-and-um-and-british-people-say-er-and-erm http://dialectblog.com/2011/04/22/um-in-different-accents/

In response to the OP: I don't ship anyone in the show. My view of Sherlock and John, based on what I see in the material presented, is that John is straight, and Sherlock is either gray/asexual or straight but celibate. I don't really see any subtext, I tend to take their statements at face value. In regards to the questioning/assuming of their sexuality by other characters, I had a close friend like that once, and people did the same thing to us all the time. So I don't see any "messages" in it, just a portrayal of something real people do. Everyone is free to their own ideas, of course.

Ditto. I thought I was the only one! I also prefer not to be there when someone is opening one from me. I'm actually more comfortable in a sheet. I walk around in one more than I'd like to admit, lol. Likewise. I too have found myself in some "bit not good" Sherlock-esque moments. The scene from ASiP springs to mind, where they are revealing that "Rachel" was the victim's stillborn child, and Sherlock says something like, "That was ages ago, why would she still be upset?" I made a very similar comment once about a miscarriage at a Christmas dinner, and I'm pretty sure I had the same exact expression on my face as Sherlock when everyone stopped what they were doing and just looked at me appalled. Not my proudest moment. I relate to soooo much that was said in this thread, I just want to quote it all! I suppose I should probably not be lazy and go write my own, though.

What's funny is that Sherlock thinks that playing the violin and not talking for days is "the worst" of him, lol.

My first introduction to anything Holmes happened when I was very little, with the Disney movie "The Great Mouse Detective". I liked it, but my brother wouldn't let me watch anything else, because he didn't like the other movies I liked. So he made me watch it all the time, every day... and after awhile it became like eating Ramen noodles for every meal. Even the thought of it made me so sick, that it tainted whatever interest I might have had and put me off of exploring anything else Holmes for a very long time. Except for a very brief period in middle school, my next exposure didn't come until 2012, after the Guy Ritchie films had come out. Sometime prior I was visiting my brother, and he popped in the first one; but he talked the whole way through, so I had no idea what was going on. What I saw didn't seem particularly interesting to me. Another day, I was visiting someone else, and she popped the second movie in. But not only did she also talk the whole way through, she started it in the middle and cut it off before the end. So once again I had no idea what was going on. Fast forward a bit, and one late night I was up and looking for a world to throw myself into. I had seen all my movies a bajillion times, so I took a look at my dad's collection, and remembered I had not seen the "Sherlock Holmes" movies all the way through (or really at all). Figured I may as well give it one more try (I was over my aversion to "The Great Mouse Detective", by the way). I made myself some tea and a fried egg, and watched them both. I know I'm in the minority here, but I loved them. I watched them again many times. Then I realized that hey, Sherlock Holmes is a major literary figure, there must be tons of other Holmes stuff out there! So I did some searching, and that's when I came across "Sherlock" on Amazon. I wasn't too sure about it at first. I love period films, so the modernization threw me off a bit. But I was quickly impressed by the way they adapted it, and by the end of the first episode I was hooked, and by the pool scene in TGG, I was really really hooked. I was so bummed when I figured out that each season was only 3 episodes. As soon as I could I went out and bought the books, and I watched several other adaptions as well. "Sherlock" is my favorite, though the Guy Ritchie films remain close to my heart and take second place. I struggle with severe depression, and isolation. I have a habit of ensconcing myself in a book, movie, or TV show when it's at its worst, to keep from drowning in my darkest thoughts. I search for something new, and when I find "that one", I will watch it over and over until I've managed to work myself out of the pit. As someone who has difficulty connecting with people and has lacked in relationships ever since I was a child, I've always used film theater as a way to experience connection. I find characters and situations I relate to and explore humanity, theirs and mine, through them. There have been days when a TV show was all that kept me going that day. "Sherlock" came around just when I needed it.

^ I was wondering that too. Speaking of birthdays, this episode aired on my birthday. ^_^ I didn't have anything else to look forward to, so it was a nice present.

I like this interpretation, thank you. =] I've been trying to come up with a satisfactory alternative understanding of his words, because it's been bugging me since I saw the episode. Something about it still doesn't sit quite right with me, but maybe if I ruminate on it some more I'll resolve the cognitive dissonance. I guess what's eating me is not so much John's motivation for saving Sherlock and whether it should be credited to Mary or not, but the possibility that he might not have saved him at all. His reasons for inaction may be valid and natural, and I realize the psychology of it was meant to be more realistic and "interesting". I'm not saying it's not understandable, it is. It was the lowest point in their friendship and he did rescue him in the end, after all, like we knew he would. But for awhile I got the distinct feeling that he wouldn't have done anything if he hadn't seen Mary's video, even knowing what kind of danger he was in, and I found that disturbing somehow. It left doubt in my mind that I never expected to have, and is difficult to eliminate now. I've always viewed them as two people who would always show up for each other, no matter what else between them. I feel I can still confidently say that Sherlock would never, ever let John die or come to harm if there were anything he could do about it; but I don't feel quite as confident saying the same of John anymore, even though he did, again, show up in the end. And I'm not quite sure why. But it's left me feeling unbalanced about them. To put it in a less extreme context, it's a bit like if my car broke down in the middle of the night and I was stranded, and I asked my best friend if they'd come get me even though we just had a huge fight, and they did. But when I asked them why they helped me, they didn't say, "Because I was worried about you," or "Because you needed me," they said, "Because it's what a good person would do." It's kind of a letdown. I know there's a lot more than that going on with John internally, and he was directing a lot of his anger at Sherlock; so there's certainly not much that could be expected of him under the circumstances. Nevertheless, it is disappointing (to me) to feel like he was acting out of a desire to do better rather than out of genuine care and concern. Perhaps his care and concern were meant to be inferred, but I wasn't able to do that from the information that was given and I would rather it had been shown more straightforwardly. But that's my problem, I guess; I don't like to have to read too far into anything in order to come up with an explanation I find satisfying. I donno. I feel weird. Something about the presentation of it all just doesn't add up to me, and I can't make sense of it. I'll figure it out eventually, lol.

^ Yeeeeeeeeees, this!

I just remembered, I was watching TBB the other day and I wanted to mention this one brief instance, because it stuck out to me and I rarely see it brought up. This is immediately after Sherlock rescued John and Sarah: I thought this was a nice example of Sherlock showing empathy. A sociopath would not think to comfort someone without a calculated reason, and Sherlock does this instinctively and without prodding.

Hello, *waves*, psychology person here. I just wanted to weigh in on the whole sociopath thing; this isn't directed at anyone in particular. The psychologist in bedelia's first article is partially correct when she says that there is no difference between psychopathy and sociopathy from a psychological diagnostic standpoint. The DSM-5 excludes both terms and generally umbrellas them under Antisocial Personality Disorder, and diagnostically there are no distinguishing traits between the two. However, the use and meaning of both terms is highly debated in the psychology sphere, especially over the last 10 years or so, and has frequently changed (e.g. for a few years it was just psychopaths that completely lacked empathy and conscience, then just sociopaths, then both, etc.). The most current leading train of thought is that psychopathy and sociopathy should be considered one and the same, but there are still many different ideas and arguments put forth about it in articles, scientific journals, textbooks, etc., all official-sounding stuff. My point being that no matter your personal view on the subject, you are sure to find information to back it up. So until psychologists make up their minds and settle on a description, the argument over whether sociopathy and psychopathy are different or not is almost entirely personal opinion and a bit moot. For numerous reasons (I'd rather not write an essay), my personal view is that Sherlock is not a sociopath (nor a psychopath, nor a "bad man"), and never was. Whether he is more selfish or egocentric than empathetic is a different debate (egocentricity being a fundamental aspect of a sociopath, but not enough by itself to pin somebody as one). You could reasonably argue that the average person is more selfish than not. I think we have seen him be self-sacrificing prior to series 4, and I personally don't see him lacking in empathy, though I see him express it in different ways than the rest of the characters. I think there's also something to be said for the necessity to moderate empathy, to balance it out, compartmentalize it, or even suppress it in order to complete his work. The nature of his work only allows for a certain degree of empathy. After a point it becomes inefficient, it could slow him down or even paralyze him, and that wouldn't help him or (by extension) the people he is trying to help. On that note, as a matter of curiosity: Sherlock's degree of empathy is often discussed, but I wonder what you all think of the empathy (or perhaps lack thereof?) shown by the rest of the characters, particularly towards him or in comparison to him? As I said above, I don't really see Sherlock as having less empathy than the others, just expressed differently. In what ways do you see Sherlock on the receiving end of empathy (not just tolerance, actual empathy)? I've been thinking about this, and to be honest, the character I really see showing the most notable amount of empathy to anyone is Molly. Though Mrs. Hudson also comes to mind, especially in TLD. I'm not even sure I see John showing all that much empathy, thinking back, although he certainly cares for Sherlock. Thoughts?

I be good with the word things. =] I think so... You can take my turn again if I'm correct. I'm gonna sit the next few rounds out.

I agree!

Okay, I will make my guess. If I'm right, Bubu, you can take my turn.

Whoops, apologies. I didn't want to interrupt the conversations going on in the other threads. Is there a spoiler deadline?

Did anyone notice that when Mycroft was retching after seeing the governor kill himself in TFP, Sherlock looked at him, and then turned to John and asked if he was okay? I just thought that was funny. No comfort for Mycroft, poor Mycroft, lol.

Lol no, I meant does anybody have any objections to Moftiss making "Sherlock" as movies instead of a TV series (as argued in sfmpco's article). Sorry if I'm not being clear, me no sleep long time.

I like most of the episodes almost equally for different reasons, so this ranking is tenuous. But if I had to... 1. The Reichenbach Fall 2. The Great Game 3. The Empty Hearse 4. A Study in Pink 5. The Lying Detective 6. A Scandal in Belgravia 7. His Last Vow 8. The Sign of Three 9. The Hounds of Baskerville 10. The Blind Baker 11. The Final Problem 12. The Six Thatchers 13. The Abominable Bride 1-5 are all very close. 6-9 and 13 as well, but they're episodes that I tend to watch more for their atmospheric qualities: A Scandal in Belgravia when I want something Christmasy, The Hounds of Baskerville when I want something naturey, The Sign of Three when I want something light, His Last Vow when I want something dark, and The Abominable Bride when I want something Gothic. I only put The Abominable Bride at the bottom of my list because I wasn't quite sure where I thought it belonged. Possibly under The Blind Baker, but I really can't decide. It feels out of place wherever I rank it. Also, all of this:

I know what it is, but I'll let other people guess. I probably shouldn't play this game, lol.

No, I meant from anyone. I didn't know they'd commented though. Hmm...

I hope not, 'cause that's what I did, lol. You are correct!

Are there any objections to making "Sherlock" movies? I'm curious if anyone is against the idea, and for what reasons.

I /_ I _ _ _ _ _ _ E T /_ I _ /_ _ E _ /_ E'S /_ _ _ _ _ I _ _ .

I /_ I _ _ _ _ _ _ E _ /_ I _ /_ _ E _ /_ E'S /_ _ _ _ _ I _ _ .