Zain

I find it depends on which produce you're talking about. Our new natural market's produce department has far more variety, and most of it's very good quality. But of the limited organic items our regular market has, theirs are better -- bigger more intact heads of romaine lettuce, larger fresher bunches of parsley and cilantro. Odd, but we try our best to buy different things at different places accordingly. I wonder, how big is your organic produce industry? I know that a lot of people around here are worried about the pending TTIP, because they are rather fond of the strict(er) European guidelines when it comes to organic food. I have not yet made my mind up, frankly, because I avoid buying goods which are imported farther than from neighbouring countries. TTIP does not concern me this much... But maybe you can shed some light? I am not even sure about the common American position when it comes to organic food in relation to genetically manipulated crops? Or is that up to the states? Do you have independent labels which check that the guidelines are kept? I am quite curious, to be honest.

Oh, I did not intend to make it sound as if I was packing my back and leaving for the New World. I am quite fond of this forum (especially the people!), and I will definitely stick around. There's general discussion as well, and I am still familiar with the 'old seasons'. But I don't think I'll give the Christmas special or the fourth season a go. Since HLV was aired, I never was particularly keen on S4 anyway. Unlike with S3, ironically. I think we've gone quite off track, haven't we? You should be discussion how to "fix" HLV here. Shame on you! ;)

I am sorry to have made you sad. Well, it's not exactly a revelation, as I stated before. It was one of the first changes that we talked about in the HLV thread. I always loved about the show that while Sherlock and John were very different people (John = popular, easy to talk to; Sherlock = difficult), from the very beginning they had been on equal standing. And this was only deepened when they became mutually dependent of one another. To me, that is no longer the case. I should have known that I had fallen out of love with Sherlock when I became enarmoured with the idea of Victor Trevor as the 'one' character to restore the inequality in John and Sherlock's friendship. I also quite liked how Sherlock made derisive comments about life and people in general, but when it came down to it, he had compassion for Henry Knight, for Mrs Hudson, and even for Irene, a criminal. That conformed with my view that life is to be valued, and I respected that they had Irene saved. But I suppose I interpreted too much into this as a statement that nobody deserved death. To me, that was something I appreciated very much. Mostly, though, it's the first point that is gone and put me off. Funny, in a way, because lately, I was more concerned with the moral issues. I guess I'll just have to look for something else that appeals to me.

I cannot make a definite statement about Moffat, that is true. However, I have to shatter your belief in one regard. Of course there are writers who write award bait. Why do you think there are agencies especially designed to analyze the success stories of previous winners and nominees to understand how much and what kind of promotion is needed for specific themes, plot, setting? And there are well-known studies on which themes/settings do BETTER than others. Just like in the book sector, there is a very powerful machinery behind what you see in the top 10 lists. That's not myth or rumour or badmouthing. It's a fact. That does not mean that only bad movies and books come from these deliberate decision-makings. However, the industry is not a business which works solely chance, on hit-and-miss. And Arcadia, thank you but I fear that will not make me fall in love with Sherlock again. It's curious, I feel... almost liberated now. Because I do not feel like I should defend HLV as a fan. In a way, I am not even sad about realizing that.

That's why I called it award bait about three pages ago... Nothing wrong with wanting recognition for your work, and if that is your priority.. I know your advice was directed at joanneta, but actually, I think I should heed it. Because you showed me that I fell out of love with the show when you asked what inge particularly liked. Most of what I stayed for is not there anymore. Thank you for that. It's rare to suddenly realize how blind one has been to their own feelings. It's quite a baffling revelation to me - and yet somehow... as if I had known already.

The deus ex machina 'turns' are partly why I think HLV is not living up to the quality of the previous episodes. But I also have noticed in S3 that Sherlock's deductions rely more on circumstantial evidence than on the carefully constructed 'induction path' which they showed us in the past. I'll try to put this chronologically, and to be precise about the eyesores of HLV: Sherlock's drug use when he did not know about Magnussen's interest in him (yet). Also, he kept a low profile, which is a contradiction in itself If Lord Smallwood was innocent, and Lady Smallwood complained that nobody was willing to stand up to him (unless she said it in self-irony): Why did they not challenge Magnussen on open ground instead of risking making it worse? Imagine what Magnussen can do with the knowledge about the letters. And now imagine what he could do with an article about how Lord Smallwood was willing to hide the incident at all costs. How did Sherlock know that Janine was working for Magnussen? How did Mary and Janine's friendship fit into this mess? How come the emergency service did not provide the police with the information that there were two different callers? (two different phones!) How come Mary is even able to visit Sherlock in hospital? Since he was shot and Magnussen hinted at a third party who might intend to kill a potential witness: The standard protocol would be to have someone guarding his room, and nobody would be allowed to visit him except close family members (Mycroft, his parents) until he is ready for questioning. If Sherlock climbed out of that window - care to explain how that works as Lestrade and John head upstairs? It is by no means a room on ground level. Yet his wounds do not open from this exertion. How did Mary get a thumbdrive, and if she's one of the 'good guys', why did she not use it to prove her innocence? How come the bodyguards do not find John's weapon? And those are just the obvious issues which have mostly been discussed in the HLV thread. It's alright if not everything adds up in a satisfying way. However, HLV is riddled with those 'let's turn a blind eye to it' questions. I do not even need to dissect the episode to find obvious continuance errors. That's why I insist that HLV is NOT intelligent. Emotionally challenging, yes. And daring, alright. But intelligent in itself? Not really. Even the noisy, gun-heavy mood and flashy twists do not hide the holes. And I feel insulted that they believe a few gunshots would smoothe it over. Actually, all the depth that you mention has been added by the fan dialogue. It's not really in the episode. The characters do not lead the moral debate... I agree, though, that this forum has seen a highly productive discussion of HLV. I'd call that intelligent. Not the episode, though... But that's my humble opinion. It it unlikely we'll find common ground. I just wished to express what I am missing from HLV, because we were talking about different meanings of the word 'intelligent'.

The controversy. Look, this episode aired a year ago, and here we're still discussing it more than any other. It raises big questions - like is it ever okay to take a life, and if so when, and can you love a murderer, and if so, should you be allowed to / allow yourself to, and what can you forgive in a relationship, and should you do that, and what about fiction, do the rules for real life have to apply there? If that's not intellectually stimulating, then I don't know. I find it more interesting certainly than different types of tobacco ash - sorry, Sherlock. So it's not that you think HLV in itself intelligent either. It is the moral issues and plane debate which you find well-placed. I'd call that thought-provoking. Can you agree with that or did I misunderstand you?

I thought I'd quote something nice for once. We tend to 'like' posts, but usually it's the parts we disagree on that we comment on. Believe it or not (I've turned from a sceptic into a firm opponent of HLV, so this is probably unbelievable): I agree. I love it too when writers make intratextual references to prior statements or events. As you said, HLV comes full circle as it confirms that 'caring is not an advantage'. However, that is not something that is unique to HLV. The entire show has got a strong element of quoting itself, and at times: Misquoting. In a way, the writers deconstruct their own work by giving new meaning to once defined 'statements'. I can appreciate how HLV carries this element as well. You've said that you like the episode intellectually, too. May I ask you to elaborate? I believe I - and others who find fault with HLV -have spent many paragraphs explaining why we find the episode too noisy, too 'brawny', too less focused on intellect. I find myself at a loss right now. Usually, I prefer to take in the "opposing" arguments to phrase my own opinion in an according form. If we neglect the moral issues, the plane debate, and the murder controversy: What is it that strikes you as intellectually pleasing about HLV?

Funny, because I feel like I've watched a completely different episode Sherlock is proven to be very much mortal, and more: He is proven to be very much human. He clings to any thread dangling in his mind, because admitting to himself that Mary could have killed him is too painful. She cannot have accepted the risk of his death, therefore ... That's what I see behind his deductions. They are incongruous with what's happening, because he is no longer seeing things clearly. Instead of wanting to find the truth, he is constructing a truth with which he can live. Then there's his loss of control. Unless they make dramatical changes, Sherlock had no influence on his fate. Be his motives selfish or to protect his brother, in the end, it is Mycroft who calls him back. In TRF, Sherlock at least plotted with Mycroft, he took charge of his future. However, Sherlock is completely in the hands of others on the plane. It is not that he cannot die as long as he is needed, he is, to a degree, not ALLOWED to die as long as he is needed. Even if Mycroft acts in Sherlock's interest, there is an element of deprivation of the right of decision. That isn't news, though Sherlock in the past had enough control over his life to voice his discontent. Just to make clear: I am not criticizing Mycroft's decision. I just tried to show why I did not get any reassuring feelings from HLV. All of the above is subjective. It's the "feeling" I got.

Yes. That's what I was trying to remember

Yes! That's it.

I have to disagree. I know that HLV has been lauded by many, but to me, it is a rather weak story. I know that my opinion will be biased to some degree, because I did not like the outcome. However, even if I put Mary's solution aside, I am bothered by its superficiality. It feels like award bait due to its showy nature. I'd rather they went back to their extremely British style of the first season.

Your theory sounds quite good to me. I cannot remember, though, which paw the cats had raised. I believe that a 'japanese' lucky cat has got to have a very specific look. I once did a bit of Japanese studies, and (I hope I am not making this up...) I vaguely remember that the lucky cat originated from folklore, based on a cat-like spirit/demon. I never questioned their logic, funnily, because I thought there might be a Chinese version. They tend to share lots of tales, similar to our European folktales, which often have common roots. But your reasoning is sound. They probably are mistaken and took for granted that a Chinese shop would sell Chinese items, and that something that is called 'Chinese lucky cat' originated from China.

I now wish I had some talent when it comes to art. I'd love to see Arcadia's story as a cartoon. We should start a new hype. Just imagine Moftiss' faces when they get to see the sudden influx of lifeguard!Mary tags. That would be worth it.

And unless wet jobs refers to her having been a lifeguard, I do not see much room for a different interpretation of the term...

Is there any real competition for Sherlock? ... Sherlock Lestrade and, if I had to settle for a third answer, Mycroft. Lestrade is the one you'd feel most comfortable approaching, I think. He's just.... likable.

To be honest, I would hope that any other man would not just back off and watch how someone who is defenceless is killed. I do not want to judge Sherlock's motive, but in my eyes, it was the right thing to do. Risky, and certainly daring, but who wouldn't try to talk someone out of shooting another person? The problem is that Mary wasn't a first-time offender, who might be unsure of what they are doing, and can be talked out of it, therefore all words fell on deaf ears.

Therefore the R.A. is Ronald Adair, and the proof of how Mary killed him is on the thumbdrive. After all, she is Moran... Yup. ^^ ... Or: No. Probably not. Though I'd LOVE it if there was a twist like this.

Yes, exactly my thoughts. Mary was also acting on the assumption that Magnussen had tangible proof, not just a memory of having seen something incriminating. Who knows, maybe that's how she got the thumbdrive, and one of the A's is for "Augustus", and the G is actually a C for Charles. One new thought for the wilder theoretical approaches

The biggest "plot" hole (and a funny fact!): Phones do seem to run on for all eternity without the need to recharge them. I don't feel bothered by it, but it's funny to imagine how Sherlock charges it every week, because he's pining after Irene.... Or to imagine how the masked guys offered Irene access to a socket, probably so that she can play Angry Birds and doesn't bother them until her execution. And the pink lady's phone is quite the exemplary student, too. It is still running, though tracking requires constant communication between the tracker and the phone. I do not know about how common the function is, but mine even says 'no thank you, I'd rather save energy now' and cuts down on any "extracurricular activies" once the last 15 % are hit. Sure, you can save a lot of time until recharging, but usually, this means disabling functions. Like GPS (cough).

Whoa, whoa. Just a minute. Did you just call me a potential Nazi for being glad Sherlock shot Magnussen? I do not think that is what Arcadia meant to say. It's a sore topic for "us", therefore we perceive any mention of the Holocaust as... let's call it accusing. But - I hope you do not find me impertinent to believe I grasp what you meant to express, Arcadia - Arcadia was trying to show how concessions/exceptions can lead to a rule, to something becoming widely accepted. She was referring to the development in the film industry that the level of violence, committed by villains and heroes alike, has risen, and become common enough that it is nowadays hard to shock audiences. Due to this, violence tends to spiral. You may have even heard that the number of violent attacks is actually not increasing, however, the severity of the injuries is. Blows to the head are now more common than two to three decades ago, and crime psychologists have linked this to the media coverage. Ugly crimes receive more attention, more coverage, and therefore the idea of punching someone to the head is not seen as severe an attack as a few years ago And yes, it's debatable if fictional violence can lead to an increase in "real" violence. I know that social psychology has proven that a correlation is to be found, but that it is certainly not the singular cause of violent behavior. Fictional violence increases a person's aggressive potential, though (that can be measured, actually. Very interesting if you look for spikes in the hormone levels). At least that was I heard about two years ago. May be obsolete knowledge by now, who knows. I do not think one's opinion on where to draw a line for fictional violence says anything about being good or bad. I did not intend to make you feel bad, and I doubt Arcadia had this in mind either. And neither do I believe that it deserves more respect than your stance. Any opinion voiced without the intention to harm others is equally of value. Here's a smiley for you to cheer up ;)

Maybe that's the reason why we see so many things in Sherlock which might actually not be there. Sure, the writers talk to each other, but to me, it seems very likely that their notion of what is happening on-screen and behind-the-scenes is not always the same. It would be quite British if everything was a hilarious misunderstanding between them. The irony! ... Though I prefer to think they actually were writing something brilliant the first two seasons. Before the international pressure got too much and forced them into more mainstream lines... Mh. And that is where I have my issues. I absolutely hate the kind of "heroes" which go for the kill. I much prefer it when they show mercy, or if no other solution can be found, are forced to go for the kill, but then struggle under the psychological pressure. It's a personality thing, I suppose. I tend to judge others as harshly as I judge myself - and I could never forgive myself if I were to end another person's life if it could be prevented. Therefore, I cannot come to terms with Magnussen's death. I am able to "see" signs of a guilty conscience in Sherlock's acquiescent manner when it comes to his departure - but I cannot see anything in that regard when it comes to Mary. I really struggle. For example, when I think of Magnussen, I cannot simply think "villain", because even horrible people do matter to someone. Even if it is only their mother. There is no person who is evil by birth, we all become who we are by interaction. Which does not mean that nobody is to be blamed for their actions, mind you. However, I cannot think in those black/white categories, not even for fiction. I just.. don't function that way. I can separate fiction from reality, but not my system of values and morals. To resort to those hollow words: It's not you, Moftiss, it's me. HLV is not just an episode that I can overlook like some do with TBB. Actually, the only reason why I am still sticking around is because I am going to wait what people will write about S4 after it aired. I'd rather remember Sherlock fondly with a slightly bad aftertaste than watch s4 and be completely disappointed. You see, I'll be looking forward to your posts

What do you then imagine that he found out about Mary if he was testing her as well? I understand your argument, but I struggle with the answer to this question. After all, the only thing that the bonfire incident proved (from Mary's side) was that she was unwilling to risk her identity being revealed to him even if John's life was in danger. Instead, she seeks Sherlock's help and therefore wastes valuable time. It's not like she needed him to "decipher" the message. To me, it seems more satisfying to argue from the director's and writer's perspective. I can see their motivation in Magnussen's message to Mary, but not so much Magnussen's motivation. I'll try to express this as concisely as possible: If Magnussen's singular motivation, as stated by him at Appledore, was to determine how far Sherlock would go for John Watson, then kidnapping John makes sense. However, there it ends. It would have been far easier to directly send a message to Sherlock instead of going through Mary. There was no certainty that she would seek out Sherlock's help. If she had not, Sherlock would not have noticed that John was missing, therefore his weakness could not have been tested. I fully agree with you that Mary's involvement is odd, as you see. This means that Magnussen consciously decided to include Mary if one were to argue in favour of an "in-story motivated action." Therefore, he must have a goal in mind, for example to test her, as you suggested. This goal must also be more important to him than to gauge Sherlock's reaction, otherwise he would not take the chance that she avoids Sherlock and ruins his original plan. However, the only thing he can learn from Mary's reaction is also whether John is her "weakness" or not. The hypothesis therefore would be as following: Magnussen used the bonfire incident to test at the same time whether John was Sherlock's and Mary's weakness alike. There it gets very confusing, because if Magnussen had tested Mary to prove that John was Mary's weakness, he would have actually hoped to see her NOT seek out Sherlock. Which makes the "test Sherlock at the same time" impossible. Magnussen cannot have had the two goals in mind at the same time as they exclude each other: If Mary's first priority was John, Sherlock would not have been involved. If Mary had helped John on her own, then he could not have tested Sherlock's weakness with the bonfire accident. Logic dictates that Magnussen did not test both at the same time, unless the writers made a grave logical error. That, however, does not answer why Mary was texted by Magnussen, when he himself does not profit from her involvement. It rather endangers his actual goal (testing Sherlock). I simply conclude that there IS no character motivation behind her inclusion. Rather, the writers wanted to introduce her and the danger theme which is connected to her. It is a far less satisfying conclusion, but I cannot see any logical character motivation behind her involvement in the bonfire incident. However, maybe you see something I overlooked. Do you have an idea in mind what Magnussen could have been looking for in Mary's reaction if it wasn't her feelings for John?

If Sherlock had been wired, they'd have proof that John was put into the bonfire by Magnussen. A running recording program on the notebook would have been just as efficient in case they were afraid the bodyguards would find out. There were countless possibilities how to charge Magnussen. The question is whether he could have wriggled his way out of it. Since Mycroft was working against Magnussen later on, I think it would have been sufficient to have witness testimonies and a recording in which Magnussen admits his involvement in the bonfire incident and the blackmailing. However, it is not a desire for justice which brought Sherlock and John to Appledore. Therefore, they did not go for that option.

Concerning Mycroft, HLV is a gaping hole. I believe Carol said so many pages ago: HLV will probably only make sense with 4.1 (assuming 4.1 picks up the pieces). The explanations were shoddy, there are a lot of logical flaws, and Mycroft's absence is either the clue to the big reveal, or simply a continuance error. Personally, I like to think that Mycroft changed his mind about Magnussen when Sherlock was shot under "mysterious" circumstances in Magnussen's office. And that is the reason why he plotted the Christmas "visit" to Appledore with Sherlock, though he did not know about Mary. Mycroft does seem the type to underestimate women like he did with Irene. But I generally like to imagine Mycroft as a fiercely overprotective, overbearing older brother. ( I still hope Mycroft will find out about Mary. And kindly remove her from the premises, either by plane, boat, or rocket ship... but the writers seem awfully pleased with Mary's character. Chances are low to remove her from the fictional universe.)