Zain

Just curious: So did you think it wrong that John got away with killing the cabbie at the end of the first episode? For all intents and purposes, that would've been defense of others, not murder (by any degree). Yeah, we know that there was nothing forcing Sherlock to swallow that pill but his own stupidity. John, however, didn't. All he knew was that those pills had claimed three lives so far and Sherlock was about to be forced to swallow one, so he shot to save his life. How'd Sherlock say? Something about avoiding the hassle of the court case, since John would not be doing time for this anyway. Basically, I am with Caya. When I wrote murder, that is what I was referring to, and only that. It's a very European take on it, I know. But basically, I am referring to what you surely know as the difference between murder (GE: Mord), killing (GE: Totschlag), and self-defense (GE: Notwehr), with the latter being a very narrow field, because it is always a matter of appropriate reaction vs. excessive reaction. Of course, it is always debatable if John acted in complete self-defense (which extends to other people), or if John could have shot to injure instead of to kill. But I believe he was doing it to save Sherlock, who at that time, was truly in danger of getting killed. It was a direct danger, not indirect like with Magnussen, that is why I think there is some ground to call it killing in self-defense. If a police officer had been in his place, that officer would have shot, too, most likely. Whether to kill or not, that, however, is debatable. John may have reacted excessively, or he may not even have hit the cabby the way he intended to, but it is possible to argue in favor of self-defense due to the imminent danger to Sherlock. I do, however, think that he should have admitted to it, and not have avoided the court case. I can accept that, because the action itself was out of self-defense, thus he is not running from the consequences of a morally wrong action. But it would have been better if he had admitted to it, and it would have been the right thing to do. And Arcadia, no offense taken. I just feared I had completely chosen the wrong words to express myself. I did not want you to think that badly of me.

I am really sorry for this, and I already feel guilty for once again fueling this discussion, especially after you put it to a closure. I just feel like you completely misunderstood me, and I'd like to once again rationally explain myself. The way you described me, it seems like you completely think me as only Mary-hating and without any other reason than being a "sore loser", because HLV did not end the way I would have liked. So, it is completely fine if you do not agree with my reasoning. But I hope that you will not think me this shallow as you described me after reading this post. And this is weird, too. Quoting myself... As I stated before, Sherlock should be punished, too. And he would have been, unlike Mary, if that vidoe hat not given Mycroft the opportunity to call him back. I did not mean that because Sherlock showed remorse, he should not be punished.Like you said, we do not know if he truly feels remorseful. However, he does not hide his crimes, which is very disrespectful to one's victims. Mary does. Sherlock does not. It is the reason why I am able to accept him back, and why I cannot accept Mary back. That, however, does not mean that I agree with the writers that Sherlock should get off unscathed. These are two different things, not completely independent of each other, yes, but not dependent of each other either. Mary and Sherlock both should be punished, they hurt defenseless people for their own gain. (even if one reasons that he did it for Mary and John, it was not self-defense, thus it is to his own gain, too, because he wants to see them happy) But Sherlock accepted his punishment, while Mary did not. That is why I for now can see Sherlock as a flawed character with a conscience, while Mary is, from what HLV tells us, flawed beyond having any sort of conscience. I cannot connect with her at all, and her cowardice disgusts me. That is why I want to see her gone, not only punished. Sherlock, on the other hand, I am quite content with being punished. In slithytove's words, because she got a better way to express herself in fewer words. Essentially the same as I meant to say. Last but not least. Why I think Sherlock less despicable than Mary, even though both hurt other people. If you do not think grievous bodily harm is enough to judge Mary, then let's think of the poor people she killed in her past, and how disrespectful she is towards them and their loved ones, when she decides to hide from her crimes and leave even more victims in her wake. I would argue the same way if Sherlock had run as soon as he had shot Magnussen. This is about the matter itself, not the person who commits the crime. There's the matter of commiting the crime in question, and the attitude one has towards that crime. 1. Do I commit the crime, or do I find another solution? 2. Do I run, or do I face the consequences? What it boils down to: It is not about hating Mary per sé. This is a moral debate, and once one starts to make exceptions to the rules, be it to judge someone less or more than another person, exceptions will become the rule. I judge Mary the way I would judge Sherlock. The thing is: From what HLV implies, Mary and Sherlock are to be treated the same according to 1 (punished), but treated differently according to 2. That's my own "formula", so if you do not agree, that is only to be expected. I just hope that it makes more sense to you now. I was rather horrified when I read your post, and I felt completely misunderstood. Maybe I only expressed myself unclearly.

No. If Sherlock had shot Mary, I would not have wanted John to "forgive" Sherlock. Not because he is Sherlock, but because murder is unforgivable, especially because it is one of those actions that you cannot undo, that you cannot make up for. Dead is dead. (To use your thoughts, I think John had then a reason to forgive Sherlock, because Mary is a loved one of his, while he is unconnected to Magnussen) I'd expect him to give up Sherlock to the police. And I do think a good friend would do just that, for the sake of said friend. Which does not mean that I wish John would condemn Sherlock in that case. But Sherlock would have to face consequences, and he would have to redeem himself. One action should not determine the rest of a person's life, but it also should not be buried and hidden away for the culprit's convenience, like it was done in Mary's case. That is her biggest fault, I think. The one most people see in her. Sure, some call it pragmatism, but that is not just pragmatic, it is downright selfishness and cowardice. Without any respect for her victims. If she had any respect in herself for the victims of her actions, be it loved ones of the ones she killed or the ones she killed, then she would face the consequences of her actions. Sherlock has many faults, too, but at least he faced those consequences. One may debate that he could not run from it, because he had too many witnesses - I cannot dispute that. On the other hand, we do not get any scene in which he complains about the punishment he received. He got off rather lightly at the end of HLV, but it did not happen because he took any action in that regard. To our knowledge. If it turns out that he was involved with the message at the end, he'd be rather despicable, too. Like Mary. But I cannot see that happening. He has a lot of flaws, but he is more in touch with his conscience than Mary. He knows he was in the wrong.

Punished. Yes. Of course. He committed murder. While his reasons are less abominable than Mary's, it is still an act of violence. Sherlock deserves to feel the consequences. I can like or dislike a character and still wish them to be brought to justice. In a way, especially because I like Sherlock, I think he should feel some sort of consequences. What kind of screwed being will be become if he gets off that lightly? Someone like Mary, maybe. Someone that does no longer think his/her actions are wrong. A suitable punishment would be prison time, or at least something that would force him to deal with Magnussen as a person. I am not sure what this is called in English, but it often is done with juvenile criminals. Because prison sentences can be detrimental to their future, they are instead forced to reconcile with their victims, with their victim's family, and so on. Not just a visit or two, but long-term, just like a sentence. Of course, it only works if the victim's family agrees, but it, if I remember correctly from what (little) we learned about law in school, it is more efficient. Because you force them to reflect upon their actions, and to actively deal with the consequences for others, as well as for them that this action had. I think it would be suitable if Sherlock were to go visit Magnussen's grave, for example, to speak to people who knew him (because there's always something good about a person, no matter how horrible that person may be. Nobody's just evil.), to get familiar with his past. Basically, to accept that he was human. I do not think Sherlock truly realized this. And, again, it is not John's place to forgive Sherlock. Sherlock did not wrong him. He wronged Magnussen. If he acted all "I will not forgive you", he'd be very selfish and judgemental. He should rather look at who he keeps near himself. I distinctly remember someone there that is much more of a danger, and even less sorry than Sherlock. So. It is not about disliking Mary. Sure, that is an important factor for me, but not the reason why I want her punished. It is, however, the reason why I want to see her gone. These two attitudes are not the same.

Maybe they were busy with the defective third sibling. Who knows. More likely, though, they had a somewhat... laissez-faire approach to raising Sherlock. It often happens with second-born children that are a few years behind their older sibling. Because the older sibling is less dependent, and the younger child "imitiates" and clings to the older child, parents are not as atuned and worried about the younger one. Is John a better brother figure? He let Mary get away with shooting Sherlock. I don't know. I can't really see him caring as much about Sherlock as Mycroft does. Mycroft has got a lot of flaws, but in this regard, I am sure that he would not forgive Mary. Even if Sherlock does... An interesting thought. I like it. But, because you inspired me... to offer another perspective. Not competing with yours, just offering a different angle. Redbeard as a symbol of Sherlock being afraid of not mattering enough. I also recall that meta essay, though I cannot name the author. You are completely right, the corridor was connected to ASiP. This time, though, it is Redbeard who "saves" him, when he was actually looking for John. John is not there, though. Because Sherlock unconsciously is afraid that John would not choose him, if he would have to choose between saving Mary and saving Sherlock. His absence in the mind palace is rather peculiar. As if Sherlock is shielding himself from considering how John would react. Would he, for instance, reject Sherlock? Not believe him? Did Sherlock for instance meet up with John before they went to set the trap for Mary, because he was afraid John would need hard evidence, otherwise he would reject Sherlock outright? To get back to yours, yes, Redbeard could represent his fear of losing John. I wonder if Mycroft had anything but Sherlock in his childhood/adolescence. He seems rather disconnected from his parents, too. Not overly familiar with them, either. Maybe Mycroft simply brings up Redbeard, because he was jealous of the dog, who took away Sherlock's attention.

May I heartily disagree? Let's not keep John and Mary, and if she ever leaves the picture, then can he just decide to abstain, because his women always annoyed me, they so do not matter for the plot. I really could not care less who John spends his free time with (anybody but Mary who just disgusts me since HLV), as long as he does it off-screen. Or let him go back to Sarah, at least she took not away that much screen time, and most of her appearances were plot-driven. Also, it does not necessarily have to be Mrs Hudson. If that analysis is right, then any woman that is "essential" for Sherlock (to make him feel abandoned) would do. Like Molly. Not that I am a big fan of John/Molly, but it would be at least practical. The screen time would be used for plot details and not feel like lost minutes, when we already get so few. Not that I believe they will take that direction. Just, Molly would fit the bill.

Oh, that works rather beautifully, Arcadia. And Sherlock's "return" at the end of HLV is the retarding moment, the delay of the "falling action."

I suppose Redbeard is connected to something else, maybe Sherlock was traumatized by losing him and stopped speaking, or hid himself away. Dogs usually are taken down, if they showed to be a threat or if they are sick. Redbeard could have attacked someone, which would merge Redbeard somewhat with Victor Trevor's dog, who bit Holmes in his youth (but with no consequences). Maybe Sherlock was responsible, maybe he had been playing with the dog and lost control. Just one of the possible ways it could be a very traumatizing event in his childhood. Or Redbeard attacked someone that was trying to hurt Sherlock, but it could not be proven that that person had bad intentions. Maybe this was the beginning of his mind palace,and of "deleting" things. Who knows.

Well, this is not just about Mary for me. John's decision is wrong on so many levels imo. If they were portrayed as loving parents... I could not but laugh about it. Because their decision not to protect their child from the time bomb Mary is is utterly irresponsible and selfish. Aaand... well. Let's see. I am rather wary of the episodes to come. You most likely will be right. I do not doubt that. But I certainly hope you are wrong.

Well, I would not say you deserve to be harmed, but you certainly cannot act all surprised if you get harmed. It's a risk you take, and when it happens, one must bear it. You cannot say "But it was such a small chance." It's a matter of taking responsibility for your own actions. For yourself, especially when those actions affect other people, like your child.

Well, both accepted the risk to the child, too, when they decided to bury Mary's past again. I mean, John could have asked her to surrender with the condition that the child would be raised in a safer environment. By him, by a lovely couple who cannot have children, or whatever. Instead, he took his chances. To me, it rather seems like neither of them really cares for the child. They do not think of it, unless it can be used for their convenience, like when Mary wants to manipulate John. They do not take responsibility for it. Neither does John. He is willing to have the child be raised by a murderer who does not even apologize for shooting his best friend, and who does not even admit to her mistakes. Who thinks she was in the right and even wronged by them. It is rather irresponsible to let a child be raised by someone with such a screwed-up perception. That is not an environment you would place your child in, not forgetting the fact that her past would constantly endanger the child, too. Even if he loved Mary enough to place himself in that sort of danger... he also decided to place the child in that danger, when he gave in. If they really loved that child, they would let go of it. To protect it from Mary's mistakes, from her past that she is too much of a coward to face. No child deserves to grow up with this kind of target drawn on its back.

Well, if it happens, he has chosen her, and when he did, he accepted the fact that he could get burnt, too, if her past caught up to her. I think pity is not appropriate. He knew what he was choosing, or at least he had the chance to know and apparently threw it away. Do we pity Sherlock, because John at first rejects him in TEH? As you sow, so you shall reap.

Well, of course you are entitled to your interpretation. All I am saying is that you can get to know a lot about a person without even having to contact those close to them. Just one person who says "Oh, he had a dog.", and another saying "Well, he became more quiet for a time. Did not show off as much as before." And another saying "Oh, the dog had to be put down. It attacked another person." And so on. And my comment on one's traces on the internet was not meant to mean that I think Sherlock shared this with another person, it rather was a universal statement. We leave traces whenever we communicate. So did Sherlock in his past. People may not be willing to talk to a stranger about another person for hours, but they may give away small details. And a lot of small details from lots of people gets you a rather good picture of someone.

I knew I was hooked when Cumberbatch first appeared on the screen. Just stumbled over it, and I can say I had very low expectations indeed. Just one of those Sherlock Holmes adaptions, right? And there are sooo many. I literally stumbled over it, when I browsed imdb for recommendations. If I hadn't had a very slow evening with basically nothing to do (and believe me, I have weird hobbies, thus I rarely have slow evenings...), I would have never seen this masterpiece. Yeah. Cumberbatch just has got such a strong and believable presence. I remember that I had to rightened myself up in my seat. Stopped "multitasking" and just watched. Doesn't happen much with me. That's when I become hooked. Because he managed to get my full attention, and without grand gestures or speeches, or whatever techniques often used to capture the audience's attention. Things rarely do catch me on the wrong foot like this series did.

Yeah, either they deal with it head on in one of the episodes, and then cross it from their to-do list, or they better put it to rest (apart from a closing remark). I do not care for it as a leitmotif either.

You think he had that information from Mycroft? I really cannot see that. Sure, my "head canon" version of Mycroft is rather dark and twisted at times, but utterly devoted to his brother in a way that is more obsession than one would consider healthy. After TRF, I doubt they would present us with this kind of solution. "Oh, it was Mycroft who blabbed." No. That would be horribly cheap. As Arcadia stated, there are lots of people in one's life to press for information. Magnussen is a master of putting sources to the best of uses, to pick up what is "useful" and what he may discard. I really do not want to know what people could get to know about me just by talking to people I barely know, like old class mates in elementary school, or former teachers, or heck, neighbours. Then there's the odd information to be found about you on the internet. If you dig long enough, you can find something on anybody. Be it from digital or human sources. Even if you do not post your picture for the world to see on a social network site, you leave traces about yourself as soon as you communicate. Just think of what the advertisement companies do. They profile you, tailor advertisement to you. Sometimes hilariously incorrectly, but let's not forget, they use machines. If a human did it... it would most likely be far more accurate. It would take longer, though.

Well, the drug abuse is one of those open ends they did not bring to a closure in s3. So I think the matter does deserve some reference. Whether they make it part of the plot, or just show that Sherlock once again is under closer observation from his friends when it comes to drug intake/smoking/danger nights.

Well, do you think Sherlock is back on drugs, again, then? Some things certainly are speaking for that setback. He took drugs in the beginning of HLV, then the morphine and follow-up meds (which do not seem to be enough for non-addicts for the first few days after they get "downgraded" to them, so how would a "former" addict cope with that feeling...). His actions do not seem to be rationally motivated, either, following the hospital stay. On the other hand, it is likely that Mycroft would have picked up on it, if Sherlock had started a new habit (or revisited an old one). Instead, he takes him seriously at Christmas, or at least, as seriously as he takes Sherlock all the time when they converse. It's not the overbearing, looking-down-on-him manner he showed when Sherlock was on drugs in the beginning of HLV. I am inclined to think that Sherlock is not back on drugs, based on Mycroft's attitude towards Sherlock. But I think they could play with that. Mary's shot certainly added more fuel to the situation. First, he took some drugs out of stupidity, and then her actions had him become dependent on morphine. If he were to struggle again with an addiction, she would be to blame, too. I wonder if she will feel ashamed of her actions then. I doubt it....

I'd be rather annoyed if they put a baby on the show. Not just because it includes Mary for another season, but because it is so.... soap opera like. What's next, Sherlock taking in a stray dog, Mycroft getting diagnosed with cancer, oh, by the way, Molly is pregnant but was drunk and does not remember the father, yes, and Sherlock finds out he was actually adopted... Boring. Tedious. Dull. (Emulating Sherlock...)

Maybe. I have to admit that I have never seen an episode of Dallas, and I do not even know what it is about. I've only heard of it as a classic. Interesting. I cannot say that I felt that something was off with the speeches themselves. I noticed that there's a discrepancy between what Magnussen, Mycroft, and Sherlock say (content-wise). So I suppose there is some backstory to cover in s4. I'll have to rewatch the dialogues tomorrow and have a closer look. Then I might be abe to participate in that round of "let's dissect the episode." But certainly an interesting aspect.

I would be fine with that. If John woke up and Sherlock has yet to return... and Mary does not exist for real. Not the best method to undo your mistakes, but, well,... It is not unheard of. I think there's a rather prominent example, I forgot the series' name, though. Something about it being cancelled, and thus they decided to end the series, but then they got another season, however one actor had already left the set and another role lined up, so they had to improvise. And they wrote the character out of it. With the explanation that the "main character" had been dreaming him into all of this, and that the previous season had been a flashback in his dream.

I believe it has been proposed that he went to see Magnussen not long before Christmas, at the end of his recovery. Drug rehab certainy is a possibility, and I do believe that HLV put him at a disadvantage in that regard, what, with the drugs at the beginning, and then the needed morphine. Even if the hospital reduced the dosage and put him on other meds, Sherlock is at a higher risk of developing another addiction. But I can't read a stay in rehab into that Christmas scene. There would be some sort of reference, wouldn't there, if they intended us to believe that is where Sherlock spent part of the last months? As far as I know, there are different theories why Sherlock had a prolonged stay at the hospital. One is that they had to put him into an induced coma for healing due to the damage and strain on his heart and lungs. After waking up, there's the need to train your muscles again before you are well enough to leave and get further therapy. That would account for a prolonged stay, they cannot really send you home mid-way. To me, that sounds plausible. A bit much because we really do not get any information on Sherlock's second stay. But certainly possible. it is something that is at times done, putting people into an induced coma (but depends on the complications, of course). Then there's the theory that Sherlock had a few setbacks, because he never takes care of his body. Two examples of all the theories going around.

Yes. Reading meta essays can be very interesting. It is amazing what people interpret into the smallest details.

There are two very well-received "meta essays" on this. They basically say the same but come to different conclusions. 1. Wellingtongoose 2. cookieswillcrumble From what I've read up since HLV (and believe me, medical texts can be rather boring. I would not recommend doing that...), both seem to explain the main points rather well. The main issue I have with wellingtongoose is that he is speculating a lot. cookieswillcrumble provides more objectivity while discussing the specifics of the injury. Essentially, though, both provide sound arguments from a medical perspective. Again, not an expert, but I read up on the circulatory system and some other texts to get a better understanding of their arguments.

Wasn't it just Jim's warning/reminder to Sherlock that "he owes him a fall?" And a countdown, in a way. Three IOU's, which mark Jim's three "targets," the apple to mark John, the one outside to mark Mrs. Hudson, and the one at the police headquarters, well, to mark Lestrade. There are very elaborate theories on it, and if one wants to read more into it, I suppose eva-christine's theory is one of the best. If you are interested in that. Link above which combines chemistry, fairy tales and ciphers. It is a very interesting read I don't buy it completely, but it certainly has its merit. I, too, think that the fall still is not over. Sure, in canon Doyle smoothed over that, too (more or less smoothly, though). But they already went deeper into it than Doyle did, so it is harder to leave things be, imo. It is not mysterious anymore, they gave too much information already. And you can give everything an interesting twist by changing the details around the fall. I doubt the writers can resist that in the long run.