Zain

Concerning Mycroft: Something you, Toby, will hate me for. I just rewatched the Christmas scene. Ever noticed this: When we get to see Mycroft at the table for the first time, there's no glass on the table. Later, Wiggins brings mother Holmes a glass of punch. She takes a sip, then puts it on the table. When Sherlock enters the room and Mycroft has his head on the table, there's still only one glass on the table. It is actually not next to Mycroft. Rather, it's halfway on the other side of the table near his mother, and it's empty. Unless Mycroft drank from his mother's glass, he didn't imbibe any punch. He also didn't have any punch before they headed outside - no glass on his place at the table. So his comment on the punch seems decidedly out of place. Genuine mistake or hint?

Good questions. I'd say Sherlock is attracted to not understanding a person. He is most interested in people when he cannot predict their movements. Like with Jim. But I don't think this means he "likes" them. Or that he empathizes with them. Magnussen was actually more predictable than Irene or Jim. He never tries to outsmart Sherlock. Irene used deception, Jim used riddles to conceal his end game. Sherlock knows from the start what Magnussen is interested in. Power over other people. It is fairly easy to predict a person's movements when you know what their goal is: After all, they have to take a path that leads there. I believe Sherlock had a good grasp of Magnussen's mindset, and that's why he wasn't fascinated by him in the least. Another example is the cabbie. Sherlock was fairly interested in him. But as soon as he found out that the cabbie was predictable because he was merely a puppet on a string, he lost interest in him. He doesn't so much like figuring out a person's mindset. He likes being puzzled by them. Maybe because it's a constant challenge to him. I would like to distance myself from the idea that "Sherlock likes danger/darkness." There's nothing particularly unpredictable about Lestrade, Molly, or Mrs Hudson. They are loyal, they like him, and so on. But they are no puzzle to him. And yet he likes them. They accept him for who he is. And all of those have a good heart. He's surrounded by people that genuinely like him. That are interested in his happiness and health. That's the kind of people he surrounds himself with. Not people like Irene or Jim. (Or Mary) John actually is a bit of a tough case. Sherlock thought at first that John was predictable. But as you mentioned, the cabbie incident is a bit of a curveball. While Sherlock has gained a good grasp of John's character, there's this small part that Sherlock cannot figure out. Probably that part that we often refer to as "John's dark side." To me, it seems like John is between the two categories I mentioned. He is unpredictable to Sherlock, and he is likable to him. And that's why he is fascinated by John.

So true. And it's not like she ever confirms any of the "good" motives Sherlock attributes to her. She is rather quiet on that front. Sherlock's already spinning some tale to justify her action, so no need to come up with one. Nothing to add. Spot-on.

I guess it depends on one's interpretation of "a bit not good." But I can't really say John is a paragon of light. In ASiP, he shoots a man. Granted, he thought the man was about to kill Sherlock but he had only limited knowledge of what was going on in the other building. I always believed John to be trigger-happier than not. This is enough for me to assume that John has got a dark side as well. It's only that he does not choose to give too much control to it. In Blind Banker, John values his pride more than Sherlock. He would rather be seen as less (colleague) than more (friend). He might not have anticipated Sherlock's reaction to it. Yes. On the other hand: He didn't know what Sherlock was up to in that bank. It could have been for a case, and Sherlock could have easily tried to establish a cover. John risks humiliating Sherlock when he corrects Sherlock's statement. It's at the end of TRF when John first calls Sherlock friend. Four episodes later than Sherlock. While we do not know if Sherlock only used "my friend John Watson" to impress Sebastian, it is quite possible that John who firmly denies their friendship in TBB is the reason why Sherlock is so surprised to hear John call him his friend in TSoT. In ASiB, John doesn't stop Lestrade when Lestrade films drugged!Sherlock. Of course we never know if Lestrade passes the video around to people who would use this against Sherlock (Donovan,..) but a good friend would have stopped him. In TEH, John attacks Wiggins and hurts him. Sure, they gave Wiggins a weapon so that John's assault had at least some sort of ground, as wonky as it may be. It's quite clear when he enters that John is itching for some action. Does he overreact? To a certain degree, certainly. Did he care about hurting Wiggins? Not really. Only when he has to face Wiggins and that he hurt him in front of Mary does he agree to at least get him sorted out. Personally I think it's not guilt that motivates him. Mary is a reminder of what he would like to be. And the person he wants to be would treat Wiggins. I don't think it excuses this particular instance in which he let his dark streak rule his head. If I look at the event in an abstract way, it is rather cruel. John uses Wiggins as a punching bag to let out his frustration with his suburban life. This especially is why I felt the itch to point it out. This is actually a rather vicious John in this scene. Even Sherlock never physically hurts people when boredom takes over. He behaves inappropriately (shoots the wall,..) but we never get to see him lash out unless emotions run high. In HLV, John does not with even one word try to convince Sherlock that Mary is not worth the trouble. Sherlock at this point betrays his brother and drugs his parents. John is ready to risk the repercussions to Sherlock so long as he profits from it. When John weighs the pros and cons, he finds the repercussions Sherlock will suffer lacking. To him, this is less important than Mary. I'd call this "a bit not good." If he himself decided to take a risk, to betray his own kin: That would be his decision. To accept that Sherlock ruins his life for John... a bit not good. Only a coward accepts his friend to take the fall for him. I will not go into the other instances in HLV which I consider "not good." Like Caya said, these are more subjective than the above. That's a bit more than "never." I am not trying to talk badly about John. I just don't think it's easy to overlook his own failings. He does a lot of "good" things. Like when he is ready to get charged with assault in exchange for defending Sherlock's name. Still I believe he has got the same capacity for " a bit not good" as Sherlock does. Only that he is more aware of it when he acts not good. If that makes it better or worse, well...

I hope you didn't take it personally I know that you are not one of the fans that dismiss part of the fandom like that. Lately, I've become very weary, though. That hatred within the fandom gets to me. It makes me sad to see people turn their back to the fandom because they feel unwelcome. I've never seen the Sherlock fandom claw at each other like this. I've got plenty of reasons why I would like Mary to leave the show. But lately, the most prominent of those is because she disrupts the fandom. This will sound strange but with every post about how people are reluctant to be honest, how people would rather not post anything and would rather turn their back to all of this... it makes me so sad. Before, people had fights. But they could relate to each other. Understand where they were coming from. There was no "superior" and "inferior" side to it. It was "I have my opinion, you have yours, but I like mine better." Now some people put others down. It's ugly. And it's not exactly a good prospect that this is still around, now that it has been months since the series has aired for the first time. I fear this will stick around. Like a stigma Mary put on the fandom. I even have found myself weary of posting. Usually, I've given my opinion but tried to reach out, to show that "all is fine." Lately, I've found myself accepting that there's no use. They don't take you seriously as soon as you state on "which side of that dividing line you are." Again, I am not talking about you or anybody specific. Not even about this forum. It's just something I've encountered in the fandom since January.

Amen. While I do like Johnlock from times to times, I like well-written Sherlock/Irene just as much (for god's sake, ships don't have to be exclusive). It's not a matter of slash vs het couple. It's not a matter of shipping. I dislike how people try to put down that part of the fandom that dislikes Mary that way. Even if it was about shipping Johnlock, it would be justified, too. I've heard plenty of people complain that they feel unwelcome now in the fandom. It's rather sad. While it is debatable if Mary disrupts John and Sherlock's friendship (I believe she does, but alas...), there's one thing that is for sure. She disrupts the fandom. I feel really sad whenever I read a post (not here, mainly other sites) how people feel afraid to post their opinion, how they are afraid of being called "Amanda-haters" just because people cannot make a distinction between an actress and a fictional character. I second that. I also think she disrupts their friendship. Sherlock has given and given, and John has yet to demonstrate that he cares as much about Sherlock as Sherlock cares about John. In my opinion, he had two major chances in HLV. Heck, three. And every time he didn't take it. He does never show that he values their friendship as much as Sherlock. 1. When Sherlock and John were at Appledore. John could have told Sherlock that Mary wasn't worth it. Sherlock at this point betrayed his brother, and he hurt his parents. John accepted Sherlock's "sacrifices" for his own gain. 2. At Christmas. When John decided to forgive Mary, he forgave her, too, that she shot Sherlock. She neither told him that she was sorry about it, nor did she make any amends. In my opinion, that's not "valuing a friend." 3. When Sherlock left for Eastern Europe and John decided to stay back. "He would have to leave his family!" So what? Sherlock had intended to sell out his brother for John. If that doesn't mean cutting all ties, and facing charges, I don't know. Three times. And not even once do we get the impression that John had doubts or concerns. Or that it was a hard decision for him in that regard. Forgiving Mary? It's only hard because she lied to him. Not because she almost killed Sherlock. In comparison: The cabby who tried to kill Sherlock suffered a rather miserable end. That's how much he valued Sherlock before Mary ruined their friendship. It's like Sherlock doesn't matter anymore. A visit a month will do. That's true but I would like to make a crucial distinction: Sherlock lies to John, yes. He plays horrible pranks on him, yes. But he never consciously endangers John's life when he lies to him. John never was in danger at Baskerville in that lab. He never was in danger when Sherlock pretended the bomb was still ticking. While Sherlock endangers John on cases, John then is also aware of it. Sherlock never does deliberately endanger John and keeps it a secret. Mary does. I'd rather have him as a friend than Mary. I'd rather have somebody play horrible pranks on me that make me feel angry and used than have my best friend lie to me in a way that almost causes me to be burnt to death just because that friend fears I will not like them anymore if I find out what kind of horrible person they are. I can forgive the former. I cannot forgive the latter. The former is bad judgement. The latter is downright selfish and cruel. It is manipulation of the worst kind.

Yes, that's the problem. Exactly. That's why I have a hard time reading posts that condemn Sherlock's behavior. I feel like we didn't get the truth. So I'd rather not judge Sherlock for now. I never know how to respond to posts like this. I can't find any fault with their interpretation. On the other hand, I believe there is more to it. And that it is not justified to condemn Sherlock by default, and to compare this to Mary's deceit.

Yes, he can. But would John do that? He would have to talk to the police, yes. But would he talk to the media? I don't think so. The media would tear into this story with every claw they have. Not because Sherlock's fate mattered to them but because it is a good story. I doubt John gave them something to play their game. Maybe he'd punch a camera or two. But talk to them? I am fully with you that it makes sense to have John as a witness. I supported this idea up until TEH. Then Sherlock's return put some things, well, into perspective. More or less. Sherlock completely omitted this part in his "fall explanation". and it makes me wary. Sherlock admits that he had to "get rid of John" to prepare for the roof showdown. On the other hand, he never states that he had anticipated John's return (or needed John to return). He gives us every necessary piece belonging to "fall" puzzle. Ball, airbag, Molly, Mycroft, homeless network, blood. If Sherlock had "used" John like he used Molly, that ball, or Mycroft -- why hide it? Sherlock is, to our knowledge, not aware that it was the wrong thing to do. On the other hand, if he simply hid how he used John deliberately -- this means he is aware of how much he wronged John. A nice little conundrum. Maybe he didn't want to admit it to John's face. On the other hand, why wouldn't he? Pride alone? Seems unlikely when he admits at the same time that he made a mistake with Jim, that he had to go to Mycroft (of all people) for help. It's another reason why I now firmly believe Sherlock not to have anticipated his jump. Not any further than to assume it a likely scenario, one of those 13 ways it could go. Maybe it had even been the worst case solution. Who knows? To me, it sounds contraproductive to have John at the scene, especially because of his baggage, the sniper. It would have been far more convenient to have all three snipers find out about Sherlock's sudden demise from the news. Why not have the cyclist make a statement? Some paid minion? John is a good witness, but do the risks (the sniper!) outweigh the gains? I don't think so. It's rather dangerous to have an unknown quantity on the premises. While Sherlock could control John's movements to a certan degree, they had to let the sniper choose his own location. If they had tried to interfere, he would have noticed that everything was staged and shot John on the spot. Why would he wait until Sherlock jumped if he knew from the very beginning it was staged?

c) Plot hole. I fear I can't propose anything that will make you happy. Maybe someone else, though.

I wouldn't put too much value on this. I recall having read both quotes before, and I believe they are ancient in "media time."

I actually figured Lazarus was a direct reference to the biblical Lazarus. Who rose from the dead. So I thought it was the code name for the one of those 13 plans that had Sherlock really fake his death. Instead of simply walking away.

Yep, Ariane de Vere's transcript. Sorry if I got your hopes up for a second And of course, you are right. i didn't express myself that well. When I wrote "Mycroft had taken care of them", I simply tried to express that they were no concern to the plan. They could be tricked quite easily.

This also makes sense in the context above. Jim's suicide forced Sherlock into action. He has to contact Mycroft to fake his death. To jump. Which hadn't been planned as anything more than a safeguard, just in case. It also explains the amount of time that passed. Let's have a look at the time frame. John leaves for Baker Street. Sherlock confronts Moriarty. John returns. Sherlock jumps. We don't know for sure how long John took to get to Baker Street and back to Bart's. It is unlikely he was this fast. There must have been at least 5 to 10 minutes between Jim's suicide and John's return. Plenty of time to position everybody after deciding on this particular escape path. This part, his jump, was not planned. Or yes, it was a possible plan, but it wasn't the one they would have chosen if Jim hadn't forced Sherlock's hand. Of course there's a major flaw in my theory, but please bear with me for now. To sum up the big contradiction: I before established this possible scenario: Sherlock hadn't intended to jump. After all, Mycroft had taken care of all three snipers. No need to jump. On the other hand, I just reasoned that Sherlock had to jump because of Jim's suicide. After all, John's sniper was still there. For now, I'll make a complete new assumption. Sherlock hadn't intended to jump. And when he had to jump, he hadn't intended to do so in front of John. Yes, it makes sense that he would need a witness. Or that John needed to mourn for real, otherwise people might not be convinced of Sherlock's demise. In TEH, Sherlock never explains why John had to be there. It is quite possible that John simply had arrived too early. Sherlock received the confirmation that everyone was in position shortly before John arrived. It's not like he waited for him. If "Lazarus is go" means that John had arrived on the scene, it would have been quite redundant. Sherlock saw him arrive from the rooftop. John wasn't part of the plan. In fact, his arrival is problematic. Because he brings another obstacle with him: A sniper. Who suddenly poses a threat. If John hadn't rushed back to Bart's, that sniper wouldn't have become a problem. Like the other two snipers, he then would have had to rely on other sources to confirm Sherlock's fall. Because he came to Bart's, too, Sherlock now has to jump for real. That's why that third sniper couldn't be taken care of like the other two snipers. He was on the scene. A mere text message wouldn't convince him. Sherlock thus has to deceive both, John and the sniper. We mustn't forget that the sniper can't have arrived that much earlier than John. He couldn't have known for sure that John would return to Bart's. He must have followed him to Baker Street, and when John headed back, he must have rushed back, too. Mycroft couldn't have anticipated the exact house and window the sniper would choose to shoot from. I suppose it was also an unlucky angle which allowed the sniper to observe the fake jump more closely than John. We know that he didn't retreat because of Sherlock's jump but because of Mycroft's sniper that threatened him. The fall thus hadn't convinced the sniper. He had to be invited to "reconsider." At this stage, I want to question Sherlock's words, however: This one sentence is characterization (too much pride to admit his mistakes), as well as a reminder how unreliable a character's narration can be. We know for sure that at least one thing hadn't been anticipated: Jim's suicide. Thus, we have to question Sherlock's narration. He could have left out crucial details. Such as the reason why he cried at the rooftop. Had he, for example, not been sure he would hit the airbag? Or had he not known for certain whether Mycroft had taken care of John's sniper? During Sherlock's narration, he never mentions how he felt at the different stages of the plan. We have to assume he left out details. I hope that helps. And that you liked it, sherlockandjohn That's my take on the fall. Btw, when I looked over the script, I found something quite interesting: Why exactly did we assume Sherlock's work was done with? Mycroft actually pulls him out of Serbia with these words: Mycroft pulls him out because he needs Sherlock in London. Not because Sherlock's work is finished. Maybe that's why they try to cover up Sherlock's motives. It is part of season four's plot. It also would explain the Eastern Europe references spread throughout season three. There are still a couple of loose threads. Later, Sherlock states: Sherlock doesn't answer Mycroft's question, he bypasses it. So, is there a link he had figured out but not eliminated? Maupertuis, meanwhile, is a nice reference to "Rat." Most people assumed the word referred to "The Giant Rat of Sumatra." Maupertuis' case meanwhile involved The Netherlands-Sumatra company. It is a nice cross-reference. But doesn't make sense in that context. Why would the company be situated in Serbia? If I am not mistaken, Watson rushed to France because Holmes became sick after that particular case. So they deliberately put it somewhere else, somewhere in Eastern Europe. The old man, John's patient, had a Russian accent, too, hadn't he? Are there any meta essays on the Eastern Europe references? I don't know of any (yet).

God, that'll be one of my longer posts. But I couldn't resist after you asked me so kindly. Sorry, I have to do this in two posts. The system reminded me that I am not allowed to post this many quotes. Let's review TRF and TEH. Since characters can lie, I will for now cross-check it with what we saw in TRF. That's an interesting reason, isn't it? It tells us nothing and everything in one sentence. We know Moriarty had already died when Sherlock jumped. So in what regard did he need to be stopped? At this point, there are two possible things: Sherlock needed to stop "Moriarty's scheme" to kill his friends, or he needs to stop this vast criminal imperium. Concerning his friends: Sherlock also claims to have known of all three snipers, and that Mycroft had taken care of two of them. John's sniper was the only one who gave them grief. Let's ask ourselves: Why? What did make him different from the other two snipers? In my opinion, it was his position. He was near the "scene." The other snipers relied on outside information. They didn't see Sherlock jump with their own eyes. John's sniper must have been in the unique position to see the fall. While this is very insutling to John, let's have a closer look. Maybe we can extract some knowledge, or at least find some implied meaning. Sherlock claims that he had considered contacting John. Something held him back. I am particularly wary of Sherlock's use of "nearly." He didn't simply think of John a couple of times. He pondered, and he was about to do it. Then something held him back. Sherlock then claims that John might say something indiscreet. To whom? Sherlock never states who he is talking about. To Mary? To the public? To some unknown threat? Two years have passed, and Sherlock believed it too dangerous to contact John because someone wasn't to know about his continued existence. I seriously doubt he feared John would give an interview and shout "Sherlock Holmes is alive." It's not like people would believe him. They'd declare him stricken with grief and delusioning himself. So it's not the public Sherlock was wary of. At this point, I daresay Sherlock is referring to a single person. Someone who was likely to keep an eye on John during those two years. Maybe Sherlock took them out, maybe he didn't. Maybe it was simply someone who watched him, and who would have reported to a dangerous person. And Sherlock doesn't have to fear that person anymore because he took them out. The main point: There must have been someone in John's surroundings (work, neighbour, ...) who had an eye on him. Otherwise it doesn't make much sense to me. That person doesn't necessarily have to harbor evil intentions. Maybe they had been paid, just like Sherlock pays his homeless network to keep track of the "rats", the markers, in TEH. To quote Sherlock: Personally, I don't think this threat has been eliminated yet. Maybe Sherlock knows of it but had not been able to acquire more information. Sherlock returned. Why still keep his continued existence a secret? We know that the media catch on fairly quickly. On the other hand, Sherlock intends to keep it secret for some more time. Why make John promise not to tell anyone? I believe that it was a leak. The public wasn't supposed to find out yet. Because of Mycroft's terrorist cell mission? Or is there still someone he had intended to smoke out? Let's walk it through. I consider the former more unlikely. Not just because I love complex theories, and because I want Mary to be the bad guy, John's Judas. Sherlock's survival had become public knowledge before the terrorist attack. If he had feared Moran to become more careful, or to eliminate him beforehand, that didn't happen. As far as we know, Sherlock didn't suffer any direct consequences. I am neglecting Magnussen's interest in him because Sherlock did not know about him at this point. To get into Sherlock's fall theory (after we established possible reasons why he hadn't contacted John): Most remarkable: Sherlock hasn't mentioned any knowledge about Jim's plan yet. The only thing we know from this passage, and it is the introduction part of his "story", is that Mycroft and he had worked together to determine the danger Jim posed. Sherlock glosses over a lot of time. We know how great a time skip that is. He starts off with Jim's captivity. Then he skips forward to the roof. He doesn't tell us the moment when he figured out Jim's plans for him. From TRF, I'd place it at Kitty Riley's apartment. And that he figured out the code didn't exist at Molly's lab shortly before he contacted Jim. Sherlock admits he didn't anticipate Jim's suicide. So, how would his plan have worked if Jim had lived? He couldn't very well have faked the jump before Jim's eyes. He also says that it wasn't the preferable solution. His jump had not been their anticipated escape path. In my opinion, that's where Mycroft's knowledge of the three snipers comes in. Sherlock wouldn't have had to jump as long as the snipers had been taken out. Sherlock confirms that there are only three snipers on the rooftop. Because that's elementary. He needs to know that there's no one else. As long as Mycroft takes care of all snipers, he has no reason to jump. He could have simply chosen not to jump. Like he did. Many have assumed (me, too) that he looked down to check whether everything had been prepared for his jump when he stood on the edge before turning around once more. It makes more sense to assume he gave his brother's people a sign. To confirm that there were only three snipers. Mycroft simply would have had to collect Moriarty, and Sherlock could have walked down the stairs. Nobody would have died. We now know Sherlock didn't have to rely on Jim's "call the snipers back code." They were already taken care of. The reason he is this victorious shortly before Jim kills himself is that their plan is working.

So, do you propose, sherlockandjohn, that they deliberately took out Sherlock's reason for jumping because they wanted it to be a big reveal that he has got a heart in HLV? I agree that they were very keen on showing us how great a character Sherlock can be, and how selfless. It didn't come as much of a surprise to me, though. Because of TRF, people have been portraying Sherlock in that light for quite some time. Maybe we were just three episodes ahead of the writers? And that's why they decided to "set us back." Otherwise there's not much "oh god, did he really" but rather "oh, he did again sacrifice himself." If we look at it, that's what Sherlock does in HLV. And because of the motives we were given in TRF, we also thought ( and I STILL BELIEVE!) he had sacrificed his own needs and time for those he loves. That's still a shallow reason to disrupt TRF's neat line of reason, though.

That's definitely it. The big reveal from TRF We better tell them that we caught on to it. We even have screenshots ~

God, you are so right. I mean, I didn't expect them to come up with anything clever. I didn't even care much for the logistics. The main elements were clear: ball to stop pulse, John had stopped so he wasn't allowed to see something, Molly is involved. Fans have come up with dozens of likely ways how Sherlock could have faked it. I doubt anyone who kept up to date with the fandom was terribly surprised by the solution. Well, by the Sherlock/Jim kiss solution, maybe. It was merely a question of how "clever" they would make their solution. There are very elaborate "fall strategies", and there are very simple ones out there. I expected their solution to be somewhere in the middle. I cared more about their reunion . While I do not particularly dislike TEH, I still think they botched it up somewhat. It's quite funny: I believe most people had come to the conclusion that Sherlock jumped, and then he took out all those secret next-in-commands who would obey Jim's last order if they heard even the slightest whisper of Sherlock's continued existence. He more or less managed, the last "target" is in London, that's why he returns and endangers John. While John is terribly angry, Sherlock at least has got something to prove that he had a reason to act the way he did. End of story. Instead, Sherlock returns and never explains what he did, or why he returned now and not later or earlier. What has changed? For all we know from season three, Sherlock spent three years merrily globetrotting to find his spiritual balance before he got caught up by accident in Serbia while sight-seeing. Sure, a full explanation is not likely, it even goes against canon. But he never even hints at it for John to draw his own conclusions. No hint whatsoever when usually the writers bombard us with them. The writers deliberately mess up the entire TRF impression (I loved TRF!) to show that Sherlock had no good reason at all to fake his death. I mean, I don't know if I am the only one: But the fall seemed to be the one good thing Sherlock did. Even if he faked his death, he had to organize everything on a short note, and I refuse to believe he faked all those emotions. I refuse to believe everything "went as planned." I still don't understand why the writers chose this solution. It's not particularly clever. It's not particularly emotional. I can't figure out any reason whatsoever why this is preferable to what TRF had hinted at. Not just from a fan's perspective, but from a writer's. It doesn't make much sense to me. I mean... it's not just a matter of "something not functioning." Rather, I cannot even see the stylistic device in there. And I can only hope that there's a reason, and that everything will turn out to be connected. Sherlock's sudden reutrn to England. Mycroft's mission in Eastern Europe. The big plot hole: why Mycroft had a file on John which contained no picture of Mary. I mean, did he deliberately blend her out? He apparently didn't have a background check made on her, either. Well, maybe she's not his type.

Or maybe she found someone who paid better and let her do more hits. Or maybe the CIA found her to be too much of a risk. Her personality could make her the perfect assassin but she doesn't seem to value anything but her own interests. Can't imagine her valuing the CIA's over her own.

An idiot that loved the power of knowledge. To me, it seems like Magnussen simply enjoyed to bathe in the power people "gave away" when they covered up their dirty secrets. He himself says that he could print whatever he liked. But he didn't. He instead searched for a person's dirty secret to get power over them and those close to them. It's not the exposure that pleases him. It's the knowledge that he has got power over another person, and that this power has been given away voluntarily. He doesn't need to use any force. He merely picks up hidden information: his ammunition. And he says "I could put it in a gun and shoot at you. Or I could give it to somebody else. I could keep it stored away, too. So many possibilities. And it is now on me to decide what happens with your secret." In a way, despicable. But I wouldn't call it criminal. I actually don't think he enjoyed "calling in a favor" so much as the knowledge that he could call in a favor. It's not like he has any specific goals. He wants to have power over Mycroft. But what for? He never mentions what he wants to enforce. A certain policy? I doubt that. Magnussen wants to know that he even has power over Mycroft, too. He isn't driven by long-term goals. It's about feeling powerful. And it's people themselves that give him power over them. They betray themselves. My take on Magnussen, at least.

I think you might like this: concerning autism, mor more exactly: Asperger's. http://wellingtongoose.tumblr.com/post/47219236641/sherlock-does-not-have-aspergers-or-autism-thanks and: http://sherlockcharacteranalysis.tumblr.com/post/31850021434/walking-nightmares-3-sherlock-himself-and-his which kind of answers wellingtongoose's analysis. http://frytha.tumblr.com/post/32482052013/diagnosing-sherlock-characters-ia-sherlock-and concerning narcissm. It's interesting to read how people argue, don't you think? There are dozens of meta essays on Sherlock's "disorder" or lack thereof. The only thing people seem to agree on is that Sherlock is by no means a sociopath/psychopath. I recall some fans have analysed BBC Sherlock for bipolar "hints." But I don't think it's a widely accepted theory. There are works that explore it, though. Like "Four Corners of the Western World" by pennypaperbrain. I believe that's the most well-known. Shocking as it may sound, I don't think that there's "something not quite right with Sherlock." In a way, everybody is a bit screwed up. I once read that it difficult to distinguish between sane and mentally ill because there is no true definition of sane but "not mentally ill." It's like calling the absence of unhappy happiness by default. Doesn't cover the grey area. Makes it sound like there's a line, and you are either on one side or the other.

Very good points, slithytove. I, too, wonder what would have happened if John had rejected Mary. It's an interesting idea to play with. I consider this one more occasion where the writers decided against giving Mary another dimension. Would she have let him go? In a way, that proves love much more than clinging to it by hurting others. I personally think she wouldn't have. I consider her love too obsessive. But it would have immensely strengthened her stance, I believe. It would have given her character more depth. It's not a very difficult concept. So I believe the writers consciously decided against this. Interesting, and thank you for answering. I agree. Again. Sometimes it's very frightening because you always find the words I am lacking. If I wasn't too sure I hadn't a secret twin... I myself think, too, that it was the first life he has claimed with his own hands. Which is funny. Before HLV, I was sure he was travelling around the world and killing off the potential next-in-command. I was quite in favor of this particular fanon fact. His reaction in HLV made me reconsider. I wonder what he was doing, though. Tracking down somebody? And I second that, Arcadia. It really would be interesting to know how much Moffat and Gatiss' interpretation of the characters and events differ.

I do hope so. Otherwise I'd be severely disappointed by Gatiss. And I truly cannot imagine that Moffat and Gatiss aren't handling this series with the utmost care. After all, it is their pet project that turned into a monster. But I agree... especially this season, it at times felt somewhat careless. I have faith, though, that there are reasons why they neglected some aspects. I mean.. it's their pet project. It's that one story you always wanted to write, the one you would almost die to show to the world. The one you do not mess up. You just don't.

Would you (personally) say, to carry it deliberately to the extreme, that Sherlock values life while Mary doesn't? And that this is the main reason why their motives differ? Just to get a clearer picture. You know I value your input (and everybody else's, too, of course. We are just often interested in the same topics.) Concerning "Is Sherlock acting selflessly or selfishly": I believe that you can see it both ways. All arguments you presented are valid, imo. There's no right or wrong answer because they never explicitly state Sherlock's motives. On the other hand, I believe his motives to be, at the core, selfless. His and Mary's actions throughout the season run parallel to a frightening degree - with the decisive factor that their motives are complete opposites. To me, this is a classic "mirror" set-up. We are supposed to see both characters as opposites (with some shared traits). Yes, I don't like Mary. I doubt anybody missed the "subtext" in my previous posts But I am arguing more or less objectively: Mary and Sherlock both lied to John to protect their "mission." Mary and Sherlock both killed. They both shoot someone to keep a secret. It wasn't Sherlock's secret to keep, but he made it his by caring for John. Sherlock literally gives John away (at John's wedding), while Mary "receives" John. John takes Mary back. Soon after, John has to let go of Sherlock for a second time. And that's just HLV. Back to my train of thoughts. We aren't given much explicit information on Mary's motives, either. There's one moment, though, that settles it quite well to determine her motive, imo: Taken from Ariane DeVere's transcript. Mary acts because she is afraid of losing John forever. I know many try to blend out the second part of her sentence, and they like to concentrate on "It would break him [...], and, Sherlock, I will never let that happen." Fact, though: It is a very important sentence. When you write a script, important scenes aren't written while thinking about what you're going to cook later in the day. Every sentence is looked at twice, thrice, to make sure it fits. The writers wanted that part in there. They wanted her to say: "It would break him and I would lose him forever, and, Sherlock, I will never let that happen." It is important for Mary's characterization, just as much as the first part. While I'd love to villanize her simply based on that, I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt for this post. Maybe she's a nice person, and maybe we'll see her face around for many seasons to come. But it cannot be disputed that her love is essentially selfish. At this point in her characterization, she would not sacrifice herself for John. John is important because he is needed to uphold her own "self." I know that it is far kinder to illusion oneself into seeing some sort of romantic gesture behind that, but it's actually the opposite of that. Maybe it's a more realistic approach to "love", and maybe that's why they put it in there. To make people identify with Mary. I don't know. I don't identify with her. But I guess I am one of those persons who cannot shut their mind up when watching something. No matter how hard they may try to justify Mary's behavior, and no matter how hard they will try to show that Mary deserved this second chance - I've reached a certain stalemate with her character the moment she shot someone to protect herself from the consequences of her actions. Anyway, the point: Mary is supposed to show us "selfish love." And I believe that Sherlock's actions are supposed to be motivated by selfless love. Not because I would like to romanticize Sherlock's character but because there are so many parallels between Mary and Sherlock, it basically screams "connect the dots, see both as two side of the same coin." But in the end, we don't know. Sherlock could have only been thinking about "not losing the game", and we wouldn't be one inch closer to knowing with certainty that he did so.

I strongly disagree. Nothing personal but I consider hurting another being only justified when there is an imminent endangerment of a person's life (and I disagree with your definition of imminent). While law can be flawed, I consider it a good example in this case: If somebody threatens a person with a knife, you are allowed to attack them with self-defense in mind. You are not allowed to stab them twenty times in the gut. If you meet someone on a street, and you remember that they threatened another person with a knife four months ago, you are NOT allowed to attack them. It is not self-defense as long as there is no IMMINENT danger. Imminent means present and very near future (minutes, not days). Just like that, it is not justified to kill somebody because they threaten to kill somebody else. A threat alone is not sufficient to justify self-defense. They haven't done anything wrong yet. Magnussen has done bad things before. Yes. But that particular "danger" which would justify killing him in self-defense did not happen yet. Sherlock's action cannot be excused, no matter what his motives may be. Magnussen hasn't taken any action whatsoever. He has simply stated his intentions. The only reason why I consider Sherlock's kill not quite as despicable as Mary's action in HLV is because Sherlock knows it is wrong, and that it is not justified. Not once does he complain about the punishment he is to receive. Not on-screen, at least. He clearly has a selfless motive, and he has a better understanding of morals. I repeat: I don't consider it sufficient reason to hurt Magnussen, but he at least is willing to bear the consequences of his actions. I know law works differently in many countries, but I believe the examples I used above are universally accepted in most European countries. A threat never justifies self-defense. Only action does. Self-defense is reaction. That's, for example, why there are few ways to intervene in domestic abuse cases when you cannot prove anything but verbal abuse.

God, I hope so. And I've been entertaining that idea for some time. I think we once mentioned it in the HLV thread. "Back in the good, old days in january and february." (It also explains much better why Mary started to work as a nurse when Sherlock deduces that she's rather a linguist, and well, an assassin. If she had "kept an eye on John" even before they met, she would have seized the opportunity and taken the job to get intel more easily on him...) I don't think he'll get Moriarty back. Maybe there will be someone organizing crimes from the shadows, but I guess Sherlock won't meet this new nemesis until episode three's last few minutes. To get a big reveal on how it's not Moriarty. Now that I wrote that Mycroft probably will jump up first thing in episode 1 and announce to Sherlock it was him who had Moriarty's face plastered over every TV while John and Mary walk through the park carrying their baby daughter and feed ducks. Just to spite me...