wildwoodflower

I think you're mistaken about this though. John asks and Sherlock hedges a bit but tells him six months or so, I'm pretty sure. Unless you think John is being willfully obtuse about a man he cares for deeply but often can't figure out?

I thought it was great even though I pretty much knew what the house of silk was all about fairly early on. The curse of our modern world where certain kinds of behaviour and the ensuing scandals are all too prevalent (as they were then and from the beginning of time probably) but it was an excellent pastiche, one of the best I've read in a while.

I genuinely think (and this based on people I know who know both Gatiss and Moffat) is that they don't know how to make a women interesting without making them treacherous and dangerous. It's a flaw in their abilities, a weird blind spot and one of the only ways in which I think Moffatt lacks creative rigor. He doesn't challenge himself with the female characters. He did once. He wrote some beautiful, deep female characters for Doctor Who before he was a showrunner.

I have to disagree about the marriage being bogus, at least on the level of sincere desire to be married and a geuine love of the man (even by your standards of how much she is capable of doing so). She isn't getting married to John in order to deceive him. She wants to forget her past (impossible, obviously) and pretend she is this new person. Only at the wedding she is reminded that that isn't possible. I don't need to forgive the character. I want to see what happens. It may be that she gets killed, maybe she'll reddem herself by some grand self-sacrifice (which is often how these things are managed), maybe they'll work it all out and it will be all wacky Raising Arizona-like with the baby accidentally left on the roof of a car. Or both will tragically die so the boys can finally realize their sexy love for one another (like in all the fix-it fics ever). I like the damned character because she is interesting and complicated and seeking redemption but not doing a good job of it. If Buffy taught me anything, it's that redemption is possible for anyone who genuinely wants it. BBC Sherlock and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, two shows I love because of the juxtaposition of the mundane with the fantastical.

Pretty sure we're meant to believe he fancied Irene Adler. And being super-smart does not preclude sexuality. There are plenty of genius physicists/musicians/theoretical mathematicians who are total horn dogs.

So you are arguing that porn is not normal at all, let alone that there is a normal preference for it? But I agree with the rest, I don't think he'd be doing that much. I think Magnussen got it wrong. Could be John borrowed Sherlock's laptop and flooded it with cheesy badly produced porn as revenge for Sherlock always using his laptop. Someone should write a story of this epic war waged by laptop. I'm given to understand that men prefer the visual sort and women enjoy the written word a lot. Don't know how true that is. As pointed out, if Sherlock wants to indulge, he has a lovely room full of naked Irene to visit. Or maybe even naked John, what do I know? Gay porn would also be normal. So Magnussen only wants stuff he can use. The creepy illegal stuff. Sherlock's "normal" porn preference is useless to him. I just though it was a funny little line. I've been trying to read all the information CAM called up when he was assessing people. That one was just kind of...adorable for some reason. A great and brilliant mind who was in lust with another great and brilliant mind, has ordinary vanilla tastes. Don't get me wrong, vanilla's a great flavor. .

I think this is one of the funniest things the writers ever threw in to the mix. What does it even mean?

And also at the end of The Sign of Three, where Mary, when Sherlock tells her and John to go dance again, looks at him and says "what about you?" If that isn't supposed to be real affection... Of course, the actress didn't know at that time what was in store for her character (or so she has claimed), but I do assume that they would not have encouraged her to play her role like she did if it was all supposed to be fake. By the way: I love the way she says "come on husband, let's go!" Shortly afterwards. I can't help but fall in love with Mary every time I see the wedding (and I have to admit that, due to a very stressful day job, I watch it a lot these days when I come home...) As for John being a lantern for his two psychopaths, I don't know about that. I've never seen him as so terribly luminous. But he's very lovable, of course. I mean morally of course. I think John Watson has a very finely tuned morality in regards to his fellow humans. He's honorable in way that Sherlock (on this show) is ... less so. But Sherlock is actually trying to be better. And that's John's doing.

I kind of want it to be Sherlock's mother. She kind of flies under the radar for a certified genius that Sherlock seems to think "understands very little."

I watch it on a regular basis. It breaks my heart and makes me laugh every damned time.

Neither do I, but it would explain why she is so cheerful in that scene!Or it could be that she had only pretended to like Sherlock and was glad that he was going out of John's life. It's possible.. No... please? Oh, that would be terrible! Oh I do hope they won't "reveal" next series that Mary's affection for Sherlock was all an act. No. That would take so much away from the drama I value in this third series. If she doesn't care about him, what becomes of the tragedy when she finds herself "forced" (in her mind) to shoot him? Maybe I'm being blind with love for this character, but I simply cannot believe the Mary who pulled John through the time after Sherlock's fake suicide and who shoved him out of the door with Sherlock so they could both "run" each other and not crack up before the festivities from too much exposure to perfume, cake, lilac and guest lists, never existed. I vastly prefer to believe that one person can be a loving wife and a good friend and a stone cold killer all in one. Real people are complex and contradictory like that - why can't she be? Ah T.O.B.Y. thank you. Because that is why, despite everything, I still love her. I really, truly believe - from the actors choices and the direction - we are meant to see her affection for him as genuine. They are more kindred spirits than John is to either of them. He's kind of like the lantern in the dark that shows them the way forward. When she blatantly calls Sherlock out on his fibbing there's love there. Sorry, everyone else, but that's what I saw. Mary's complex and conflicted and I like that in a character. it's why I like Sherlock and why I like John. Layers. Lots of layers. And sometimes those layers are shifting beneath the surface like tectonic plates.

Female fans love Moriarty though (if fanfiction is any indication). He's just another boydoll to play with. They can smoosh the plastics face together and make them all kiss.

I think Sherlolly is the cutest smushed name ever.

Murder by Decree. I actually saw this in the theater when it came out:-) There are some seriously creepy scenes in this.

That was brilliant. Thanks for sharing. And I'm always amused by how quickly our fictional heros recover from catrostrophic physical injuries. (In Elementary sherlock is shot in the shoulder and a few weeks later is doing those crazy clapping pushups). Also at how quickly detectives on telly manage to get results from DNA testing.

I have an artist associate/friend who was actually shot in the head (by the man she was living with whom she discovered had maxed out all her credit cards). She survived, but then he didn't stick the gun in her mouth and blow the back of her brains out. I know we can't base our assumptions on anything we thought we saw or anything we thought Sherlock must've seen. Sometimes Moffat's laissez-faire attitude about the permanence of death is annoying:-)

Er, no.... That's the way I approach a work of fiction, and how I would hope my own work is read. (I have published commercial fiction, which is the unattractive name for stories in mass circulation magazines, and am lucky enough to have some small - tiny - experience of writing for tv and radio. Add to that an educational background in English Literature, and you can see where I am coming from.). I pay the writers the courtesy of taking their work seriously, even when it is comedy, because I know the effort that goes into creating well-rounded characters as compared to two-dimensional cardboard cut-outs. I also find it exciting when they manage to come up with a narrative arc that challenges us and stimulates debate, instead of going down the cliched route where every plot development is signalled long before it arrives.(Think of Downton Abbey as a prime example of the latter.) So, no, I do not think it is real and I am not taking it personally. I like to consider subtext and to argue passionately for a particular interpretation, insofar as it can be justified by close reference to the text. Good writing (aided, of course, by superb acting) tackles moral issues and invites us to debate them within the context of the work. In the recent series, there have been many moral questions.... Can murder ever be justified? To whom do we owe the greatest loyalty? Is forgiveness always noble? Can love be a motive for evil? Yes, Sherlock is an enjoyable piece of entertainment and I love its energy, its imagination and its humour, but I also like to discuss all the nuances of plot and character. That is why I am on this forum. To me, it is fun. With all due respect, I think your comment is quite patronising and somewhat offensive. Apologies. I did the very thing I promised I wouldn't do on while mercury is in retrograde:-) I am also a pro, paid, published writer of fiction (mostly speculative and SF) and I do understand the compulsion to do thorough, deep readings of text - that's much of fandom isn't it? My interests and focus are usually on the feminst perspectives, but that is super hard to reconcile with a show like this where the lead's only legitimate romantic interest was a dominatrix blackmailing the British government, and whose mother apparently stopped being a theoretical mathematician in order to raise children (because your brain stops working when you have children? I know it feels that way sometimes but...). Sometimes I just have to put on the blinders or I can't enjoy it anymore. After too many years hanging around various fandoms, I don't find it fun to be outraged all the time. It's only exhausting. And fandom, quite often, is already completely exhausting. So best advice is for me not to read anything anyone has said on the subject. But on the other hand, I'd be interested to know more about your own "commercial" work if you'd care to share links or anything (in a private message if you'd rather) to those of us who are interested. (Edited a gazillion times because my keyboard is very sticky today).

You seem to be taking this quite personally, almost as if your beloved had turned out to be a killer for hire and shot your best friend. I'm assuming that hasn't actually happened on account of well, real life often having less melodrama than fictional life. As Shelock himself pointed out (in words written for him by a writer) - these are the stories of two men and their frankly ridiculous adventures. Mary is one of those adventures.

That's a good interpretaion of the scene. And one I can go with. It was the classic "rock and a hard place" situation. I'm not justifying her actions in any way. I'm thinking in terms of storytelling. This type of character is a well-used trope in modern story-telling. (Mostly male like Bond, Bourne, Michael Westin - but also Nikita, and Sydney in Alias). Mary is a former CIA "wetworks engineer" if we are to believe CAM's statements (and he could be skewing them for his own reasons obviously). She was disillusioned. Went rogue. Went on the run and then tried to disappear. Not only does she not want to lose John, she doesn't want to be found by whoever she was working for. And she's pregnant which puts a whole hormonal twist on the thing. Women's brains shrink up to 7% while pregnant. You don't make the quickest decisions. Or sometimes even remember why you entered a room. Anyway I think the dynamic is interesting. I think it will be exciting and fun. Plus, there's a baby and the possiblity of reckless child endangerment in the fine tradition of Raising Arizona. I can't wait.

Except for that, you know, she did kill him. He flatlined. Yes, but I was speaking of INTENTION. I'm arguing that she could have done it more efficiently if that was her intention. And maybe it was and she just hestitated too long so that her aim dropped from a killshot between the eyes to somewhere in the vcinity of his gall bladder. And yes, it was clear that he underesitmated his influence over her behavior, but she did not aim to kill. The audience is given evidence of her aiming skills later. We are supposed to take away from that evidence that we can trust Sherlock on this. You don't have to of course, I'm just speaking from the persepctive of writing and direction. The fact that the character technically died (with a perfectly beautiful tiny hole in his whitest-man-on-earth body even though we were previously given the impression they had cut him open and were actually squeezing his heart to make it work) has no bearing on Mrs. Watson's intention. I like the character. I like the twist. I intend to watch the show when it's back partly to see what they do with her. I want to see what they do with all these wierd, dynamic people. And I doubt anyone on this forum will choose not to watch Series 4 because it might compromise a moral stance they took all the way back in January 2014 Anyway we can always write fic that fixes the problem. That's what a thousand fans are likely doing this very minute.

Well, I do have to say that her apparent take on the characters, and on John in particular, is not my take. For example: "John shoots people. He shot the psycho cabbie in episode one, and that was fine. He beat up a crack addict, and that was fine. So, Mary fits in really well with those two. They’re all psychopaths." I do hope she's joking about the psychopath part. I mean, John shoots a serial killer who's trying to poison Sherlock, and he disarms a guy who's trying to stab him -- and that makes him a psychopath?! I wish she had elaborated on the "redeemed" part. It seems to me that her shooting Sherlock is either justifiable on the spot (and I think a good case can be made for that) or it's not justifiable at all. If she's talking about Sherlock's "surgical precision" claptrap, I don't see that as redeeming her. I think that was just Sherlock's way of giving John his permission to work things out with Mary. Okay, but we're all clear that If she had intended to kill him she would have killed him. I think it was explained very well by sherlock's later analysis of events. If she had no qualms about killing him and wished only to protect her secret and her relationship with John than she would have killed Sherlock, killed Magnussen and got out before it was discovered. But it is confusing (human beings are sort of confusing and conflicted at times) because she clearly shoots to thoroughly incapacitate. She doesn't want Sherlock talking too soon (and is maybe conflicted about whether she wants him able to talk at all, certainly not about her). And when John tells her Sherlock pulled through then she looks relieved (for him) and worried (for herself) at the same time. So, I thought it was interesting and entertaining. Exciting and thrilling and heart-wrenching and heart-pounding and I was shaking during that scene in Magnussen's office. That's good television, isn't it? I kind of love Mary Morstan for being so very very interesting. I hope they don't kill her off. I hope they all figure out how to be one weird dysfunctional little family. John can be the moral center for both of them. And baby makes four.

Well you've neatly justified it to yourself anyway.

Exactly. And it probably helps that CAM was so damn despicable. The flicking was enough reason to shoot him. After seeing it again Sunday night I heard something I hadn't heard the first time. When Magnussen is telling John he should try to keep his eye open so he can flick that, he then says that Janine only managed it once and comments on what a funny noise she made. And then Sherlock gets this look on his face like he had made the decision right then and he only had to be very very clear all the information was in Magnussen's head and nowhere else. It was the casual cruelty to Janine (and by extention, all the other Janines) that seemed to seal Magnussen's fate in that moment. .

Well, I have been around drug addicts who are surprisngly graceful and terrifyingly aggressive. (That strong-arming Mycroft was an example I believe).Also BC did a good job with the slowed and dulled reaction to being slapped hard. That is, a slowed reaction is also a symptom (more of heroin or opiates though). I don't argue that SH may have known exactly how much to use to get the reaction he was hoping for from CAM, but I think BC was playing it as a person who is high. I am a bit confused about the crack cocaine assumption though. Was that ever said? Most of those people looked like they'd been doing heroin. Crack is so very very bad for the brain (and the whole body) I don't think he would risk it. But he might do something else to sell the lie he wants to sell. Sherlock strikes me as a man with a laissez-faire attitude about such things. He can do it because he knows what he's doing and he'll be better at it than anyone else and nevermind that he has already been in rehab, that wasn't his idea anyway, etc.

Uh, why would she need protection if she's an assassin and clearly able to take care of herself. Why would she fake her love for him. She could just leave and probably be much safer.