Why did Moriarty kill himself?

[Julia Mae]

Even heroes make mistakes ...

 

A miscalculation in his part, perhaps.  Or just two opponents that thought so closely alike that it would be hard to out think and out out wit each other as almost happened but Sherlock came out ahead in the end.

 

He never gave up, even when he made mistakes and sometimes, even failed. He never gave over. He remains Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective. In canon he says that he would have made a rare criminal but he never does. He was the master detective and would always work against injustice.

 

Well, it's no big deal that BBC Sherlock makes mistakes, he declares this about himself at the very beginning, "I didn't expect to get everything right ... Sister!  It's always something!"

 

In Baskerville, when John forces Sherlock to admit he "got it wrong,"  Sherlock says, "Won't happen again."  The character arc in BBC Sherlock always takes us closer to the Classic Canon Holmes.  Gatiss wants us to know how Sherlock becomes Sherlock Holmes.   Being wrong at this point is just part of who he is.  As is being a hero.  

 

[bborchar]

 

I wrote exactly what it says earlier in the thread, but I will copy it here again:

 

John: "And of course, Sherlock handed the plans straight back to his brother, didn't he? Didn't he? I mean he wouldn't be so stupid as to use them to try and flush out a psychopath obsessed with destroying him. No. Even Sherlock wouldn't be that reckless, surely?"

 

Sherlock: "It worked."

 

 

I would call it unclear at best and in any case not Canon.  However, Sherlock is still, at this point,  operating with a bit of megalomania: like a kid who thinks he can drink and drive because he's not ordinary, he can "handle" it.  So possibly he did take the plans or a copy of them, I suppose.  Doesn't make him unpatriotic.

 

 

 

It is part of the canon in the tv show (according to BBC's website, it is the "official guide to the series").  Just like John's blog website and Sherlock's website, it has little "extras" that we don't see in the show that are part of the story, such as what Sherlock said during Moriarty's trial that got him thrown in jail for contempt and forensic reports for various people.  And it is clear to me that it says that Sherlock took the real plans.  And I just don't think Sherlock cares about patriotism- that doesn't mean he isn't patriotic or is, it just means that he doesn't care one way or another (there are plenty of people like that).  Sherlock cares about something when it affects him or a case, but he will only care if it is interesting.

[Julia Mae]

 

I would call it unclear at best and in any case not Canon.  However, Sherlock is still, at this point,  operating with a bit of megalomania: like a kid who thinks he can drink and drive because he's not ordinary, he can "handle" it.  So possibly he did take the plans or a copy of them, I suppose.  Doesn't make him unpatriotic.

 

 

 

It is part of the canon in the tv show (according to BBC's website, it is the "official guide to the series").  Just like John's blog website and Sherlock's website, it has little "extras" that we don't see in the show that are part of the story, such as what Sherlock said during Moriarty's trial that got him thrown in jail for contempt and forensic reports for various people.  And it is clear to me that it says that Sherlock took the real plans.  And I just don't think Sherlock cares about patriotism- that doesn't mean he isn't patriotic or is, it just means that he doesn't care one way or another (there are plenty of people like that).  Sherlock cares about something when it affects him or a case, but he will only care if it is interesting.

 

 

I don't think an ad blurb makes it canon.   John's blog is wrong, the date he says they met at the flat is impossible.  It wasn't that day.  John's Blog is Wrong or the Solar System Is.  The real Canon for the show is what we see on air, not a script or commentary.   I think your assessment of his character is correct at the start, but by the end of Series 2 has changed dramatically.

 

What I do pick up from you, though, is that you don't seem to like Sherlock very much.

 

[bborchar]

 

I don't think an ad blurb makes it canon.   John's blog is wrong, the date he says they met at the flat is impossible.  It wasn't that day.  John's Blog is Wrong or the Solar System Is.  The real Canon for the show is what we see on air, not a script or commentary.   I think your assessment of his character is correct at the start, but by the end of Series 2 has changed dramatically.

 

What I do pick up from you, though, is that you don't seem to like Sherlock very much.

 

 

 

It's not an "ad blurb" - it's the official companion guide to the tv show written using the writers' own words.  That makes it canon in relation to the show.  If it weren't official, they would have never let the author use pictures, news paper clippings, etc from the actual show.  It's full of "in-between" moments that we don't get to see in the show, as well as information about the show as it relates to the books, and how the writers work them into each episode.  I have given every reason why I see the ending of TGG as happening the way it does, and if you don't agree with it, that's fine- but the sources I have used to back it up are indeed official.  And since John Watson's EXACT blog is used on the show, I would argue that is indeed canon, flaws and all.  It also has extras from filming that are not included in the show, but are important (videos of Moriarty breaking into 221B and BBC news reporting on the death of Sherlock).  I don't see how those could not be considered as part of the show.

 

And you couldn't be more wrong- I find Sherlock's character fascinating and interesting.  He's an a**hole that fully admits it and doesn't care what others think about it.  And I never said that his character doesn't change.  There's a very clear arc to his character where he grows into a good man- but he's not a good man at the end of season one (which we are talking about)- he is very clearly interested in the game for its intellectual challenges and not because of the people who are getting hurt by it.  Up until the pool scene, Sherlock is thinking that he and Moriarty are the same, but on different sides, and that it was his choice that he picked to be on the side of good- but then he realizes that he actually does care about someone (John) and realizes that he could never choose to be Moriarty.  THAT is when we see the big change in his character, and he is never truly a "hero" until the end of TRF.  

 

If Sherlock were just your everyday good guy defeating the bad guy, the show and his character would be incredibly boring.  I like it that he is flawed, and there is absolutely no problem with pointing out his flaws- that was the way he was written.  Would I like him if I had to live with him?  Doubtful, but then again, not many people could stand living with him.  John is his best friend and can hardly stand living with him sometimes.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

He is a hero in the eyes of those he helped,especially Mrs. Hudson. But as it has been said, it wasn't what was important. He didn't care what people thought of him. Lestrade says it best though, "Sherlock Holmes is a great man, and I think one day, if we're very very lucky, he might be a good one."

 

The potential was there and people saw it.  Sherlock was living in the center of his own little universe. The "puzzles" kept him interested in life. "Breathing. Breathing is boring."  Like Moriarty, he got bored with it. "Look at that, Mrs Hudson. Quiet. Calm. Peaceful. Isn't it hateful."

 

Like many scholars have said, he was amoral all he needed was a moral compass and in both the canon and on BBC Sherlock, Dr. John H. Watson has provided that.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... there is a whole lot of things that we, the audience, are not being told. Which is half the fun. The speculation and the anticipation that the things we don't know will be revealed at some point.

I certainly hope that's true! If "Reichenbach" turns out to have been nothing but a bunch of loose ends, I might go jump off of St. Bart's myself!

 

As for the quote from the Casebook, that's primarily a quote from John, who rarely knows exactly what Sherlock is up to.  Sherlock's terse comment merely states that whatever he did, it worked.  So I wouldn't put too much weight on that.

 

[Julia Mae]

 

And you couldn't be more wrong- I find Sherlock's character fascinating and interesting.  He's an a**hole that fully admits it and doesn't care what others think about it

 

Like I said, you don't seem to like him very much.  I think we're done.  

[bborchar]

 

 

And you couldn't be more wrong- I find Sherlock's character fascinating and interesting.  He's an a**hole that fully admits it and doesn't care what others think about it

 

Like I said, you don't seem to like him very much.  I think we're done.  

 

 

So, because I admit that Sherlock acts like a jerk (which is exactly the way his character is written- just name one person that he doesn't offend at some point), that means I don't like his character?  It's a show- the protagonist is written as an anti-hero and evolves as the show goes on.  Some of my favorite books have protagonists like, because flawed characters make for better stories.  What difference does it make if I would like him as a person or not?  I like him as a character in a tv show because it makes for good storytelling.

 

You don't have to agree with my opinion, but you can't tell me whether I like something or not.  If I didn't like his character, it would be impossible for me to like the show; and if that were true, I wouldn't be here discussing my opinion on it.  If you think he is different from what I said, feel free to say how you see Sherlock's character.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I might go jump off St Bart's myself.

Oh I hope not, Carol! You are needed to much here.

 

Any way, Mofftiss has made it very clear that the audience does not know everything about Sherlock and the dramatics he is capable of.  Take for instance his flirting with the pill of the killer cabbie and his dosing John's coffee with what he suspects may be drugged sugar then the locking of John in the lab and subjecting him to the toxin in the fog and then playing him the tape of a snarling dog.

 

In "A Study in Pink" John explains the pill away by saying: "You risk your life to prove you're clever. You're an idiot."

 

But this really doesn't give us the audience the real picture. When John first met Mike Stamford, at least in the original, he was warned by Stamford about one of Sherlock more scientific and extreme bents of mind.

 

          "If we don't get on it will be easy to part company." I answered. "It seems to me, Stamford," I added looking hard at my companion, "that you have some reason for washing your hands of this matter. Is this fellow's temper so formidable, or what it it? Don't be mealymouthed about it."

          "It is not easy to express the inexpressible," he answered (This is Stamford speaking now) he answered with a laugh. "Holmes is a little too scientific for my tastes-it approaches to cold-bloodedness. I could imagine his giving a friend a little pinch of the latest vegetable alkaloid not out of malevolence, you understand, but simply out of a spirit of inquiry in order to have an accurate idea of the effects. To do him justice, I think that he would take it himself with the same readiness. He appears to have a passion for definite and exact knowledge."

And this, my friends, describes Sherlock in a nut shell. His need to know and understand even if he needs to have a two legged subject.

[bborchar]

 

And this, my friends, describes Sherlock in a nut shell. His need to know and understand even if he needs to have a two legged subject.

 

 

But you have to qualify it by saying he often overestimates his abilities and makes mistakes.  He's the kind of person who thinks that he's never wrong, and isn't wrong most of the time- however, when he DOES get something wrong, it's often a big and dangerous mistake.  I would say the biggest mistake he often makes is that he doesn't admit that he needs help.  For example, keeping John locked out of the apartment almost gets him killed in TBB. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

 

And you couldn't be more wrong- I find Sherlock's character fascinating and interesting.  He's an a**hole that fully admits it and doesn't care what others think about it

 

Like I said, you don't seem to like him very much.  I think we're done.  

 

 

It sounds to me like you're basically agreeing, but you don't realize it because you're using the same phrase to mean two different things.  I'm like bborchar, or at least I was before Series 2 -- I thought Sherlock was an excellent, interesting, well-played character, but I would NOT have wanted to have lunch with him.  So I liked the character in the artistic sense, but not in the pretend-that-he's-a-real-person sense.  With Series 2, Sherlock-as-a-person began to grow on me -- but I still like John a whole lot better!

 

 

 

 

He's the kind of person who thinks that he's never wrong, and isn't wrong most of the time- however, when he DOES get something wrong, it's often a big and dangerous mistake.  I would say the biggest mistake he often makes is that he doesn't admit that he needs help.  For example, keeping John locked out of the apartment almost gets him killed in TBB.

 

All too true, though that took me a minute -- you're talking about Soo Lin's apartment, right?

[bborchar]

 

 

 

And you couldn't be more wrong- I find Sherlock's character fascinating and interesting.  He's an a**hole that fully admits it and doesn't care what others think about it

 

Like I said, you don't seem to like him very much.  I think we're done.  

 

 

It sounds to me like you're basically agreeing, but you don't realize it because you're using the same phrase to mean two different things.  I'm like bborchar, or at least I was before Series 2 -- I thought Sherlock was an excellent, interesting, well-played character, but I would NOT have wanted to have lunch with him.  So I liked the character in the artistic sense, but not in the pretend-that-he's-a-real-person sense.  With Series 2, Sherlock-as-a-person began to grow on me -- but I still like John a whole lot better!

 

 

 

 

He's the kind of person who thinks that he's never wrong, and isn't wrong most of the time- however, when he DOES get something wrong, it's often a big and dangerous mistake.  I would say the biggest mistake he often makes is that he doesn't admit that he needs help.  For example, keeping John locked out of the apartment almost gets him killed in TBB.

 

All too true, though that took me a minute -- you're talking about Soo Lin's apartment, right?

 

 

 

I agree that he definitely changes for the better during the 2nd series, but he's really still only sociable with people he considers friends- but on the plus side, he actually starts treating his friends better.

 

Yup, in Soo Lin's apartment  

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

But you have to qualify it by saying he often overestimates his abilities and makes mistakes.  He's the kind of person who thinks that he's never wrong, and isn't wrong most of the time- however, when he DOES get something wrong, it's often a big and dangerous mistake.

 

And hasn't that been said, time and time again. He is only human, he makes mistakes. He's a genius, yes he has an inordinately huge ego and he has all the faith in the world in himself and when it is shaken, as in the "Hounds of the Baskervilles" it is a big time thing even for him.

 

 

It takes time for people to get to know each other. Yes, Sherlock finally found someone who accepted the challenge of flat sharing but also put up with his idiosyncracies. But both men are fully grown and have trust  issues and Sherlock Holmes is used to working alone. Plus he had called John friend and had been rebuffed and in front of a smug prat.

 

But he has been a detective for years. Danger and sudden death comes with the territory. John is a battle field doctor and he knows that same ground very well. He himself had been shot and almost died. It goes with the territory.

[Julia Mae]

And hasn't that been said, time and time again. He is only human, he makes mistakes. He's a genius, yes he has an inordinately huge ego and he has all the faith in the world in himself and when it is shaken, as in the "Hounds of the Baskervilles" it is a big time thing even for him.

 

I've lost the thread of the thread and how we got to this debate, but on the topic of why Moriarty killed himself, it was just his most ardent wish to solve the Problem.  I think he defined it well enough himself for this not to be a huge debate.  Why that moment would have to be, IMO, because he was convinced he had paid off his IOU.  Sherlock convinced him. 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Why that moment would have to be, IMO, because he was convinced he had paid off his IOU.  Sherlock convinced him. 

 

That does make sense. Moriarty believed that Sherlock had no way out. Moriarty knew what a lot of people didn't fully yet realize. That Sherlock did have a heart, he did care and this was his Achilles's heel. If Moriarty could die being thought an innocent killed by Sherlock Holmes with no hope of redemption then he would have indeed won the game. Sherlock would take Moriarty's place as master criminal and Moriarty would be forever painted as the hero who brought him to heel.

[bborchar]

 

But you have to qualify it by saying he often overestimates his abilities and makes mistakes.  He's the kind of person who thinks that he's never wrong, and isn't wrong most of the time- however, when he DOES get something wrong, it's often a big and dangerous mistake.

 

And hasn't that been said, time and time again. He is only human, he makes mistakes. He's a genius, yes he has an inordinately huge ego and he has all the faith in the world in himself and when it is shaken, as in the "Hounds of the Baskervilles" it is a big time thing even for him.

 

 

It takes time for people to get to know each other. Yes, Sherlock finally found someone who accepted the challenge of flat sharing but also put up with his idiosyncracies. But both men are fully grown and have trust  issues and Sherlock Holmes is used to working alone. Plus he had called John friend and had been rebuffed and in front of a smug prat.

 

But he has been a detective for years. Danger and sudden death comes with the territory. John is a battle field doctor and he knows that same ground very well. He himself had been shot and almost died. It goes with the territory.

 

 

I know that other people have said it, but I was just replying to the other statement.  And to expand on it, I think that his flaws end up making him a better person.  But it's not the danger that Sherlock gets into by being a detective that is the issue, it's the unnecessary danger he puts himself in that is the problem.  Why does Irene Adler get the upper hand by drugging him?  He lets his guard down because he thinks he's won- he underestimates her.  If he had been more careful about it, she would have never been able to get him with the syringe.  I'm just saying that his flaws are a good thing, because his flaws humble him (even if he doesn't want to admit it), and what he needed more than anything when he met John was some humility- at least enough to admit that he needs help sometimes.

 

 

I would say that John and Sherlock became best friends pretty quickly.  We see the change in their relationship when John saves Sherlock's life in ASIP.  By TBB, they are close enough friends that Sherlock will let John borrow his bank card and follow him on a date.  That's pretty close to me.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

It is his flaws that make him an interesting character. Most of the better fictional characters do. We can relate to them better.  How many people do you know that will admit that they have a problem, or that they are wrong. It doesn't take a genius for that. Pride, how ever misplaced, is part of the human makeup.

 

He misjudged her, but this is a young Sherlock who has little experience, so we are led to believe in all the works of canon, of women of any sort.  She is the one woman in all the stories that bests him. Is in his league mentally. How dull and boring it would have been if they had watered her down or made Sherlock less taken in by her. It makes a very interesting story line. There is no shame in being bested by someone who is clever enough to take you on toe to toe. She had backbone and he respected in that someway. Yes, in the end he had to take her down. She was  working with Moriarty, who was beginning to loom large, and for all that she reacted to him, she was willing to put her little game of domination before that. She was not to be trusted.

 

There is some trust, but why does John rebuff Sherlock when he is introduced as friend to Sebastian at the bank? John says "colleague" and you can see that Sherlock is taken a back. He lets John use his card, yes, because money is not an issue with him. Why should he care if John used it? John is the one who runs the errands it's only logical that he uses the money.

 

As for following John and Sarah on the date, remember, it was Sherlock that set it up. He suggested the circus. He was going to be investigating it as a link to the deaths of the two men and The Black Lotus and he only wanted John there to help. He wasn't there as a friend, per say, it was part of his job, The Work. That was his only motivation.

[bborchar]

It is his flaws that make him an interesting character. Most of the better fictional characters do. We can relate to them better.  How many people do you know that will admit that they have a problem, or that they are wrong. It doesn't take a genius for that. Pride, how ever misplaced, is part of the human makeup.

 

He misjudged her, but this is a young Sherlock who has little experience, so we are led to believe in all the works of canon, of women of any sort.  She is the one woman in all the stories that bests him. Is in his league mentally. How dull and boring it would have been if they had watered her down or made Sherlock less taken in by her. It makes a very interesting story line. There is no shame in being bested by someone who is clever enough to take you on toe to toe. She had backbone and he respected in that someway. Yes, in the end he had to take her down. She was  working with Moriarty, who was beginning to loom large, and for all that she reacted to him, she was willing to put her little game of domination before that. She was not to be trusted.

 

There is some trust, but why does John rebuff Sherlock when he is introduced as friend to Sebastian at the bank? John says "colleague" and you can see that Sherlock is taken a back. He lets John use his card, yes, because money is not an issue with him. Why should he care if John used it? John is the one who runs the errands it's only logical that he uses the money.

 

As for following John and Sarah on the date, remember, it was Sherlock that set it up. He suggested the circus. He was going to be investigating it as a link to the deaths of the two men and The Black Lotus and he only wanted John there to help. He wasn't there as a friend, per say, it was part of his job, The Work. That was his only motivation.

 

John is mad at Sherlock because Sherlock hasn't told him what was going on yet.  He says right before "This isn't the kind of bank I thought you were talking about."  And Sherlock wanted John to go with him initially, until John said he had a date.  So then he invited himself along.  Sherlock definitely trusts John by the second episode, and John is still in a bit of the "hero-worship" phase where he is still watching what Sherlock does with amazement.  The third episode is where we see their two different views of crime clash with each enough that John and Sherlock almost hit an impasse.  If the two of them didn't have a real friendship by that point, that scene would not have had the impact that it does have.  But I will say that I think TBB was the worst written episode so far, so it doesn't have a lot of the same character building (John's character is flushed out a little more, but that's it) that we see in the other episodes.  Really the only scene that I really enjoyed in that entire episode was the one where Sherlock is getting strangled in the apartment while John waits outside mad at him.  The premise of the gang, the chinese characters (which anyone who can read any chinese or japanese characters would recognize as a form of chinese), and the ending with the HUGE spear thing IN the tunnel to threaten John (when we see that a gun works well enough) just was verging on the ludicrous.  Fun, but ludicrous.

 

Back OT, I'm still convinced that Sherlock says something only Moriarty understands.  The reason I think this is that the first time I watched it, I was absolutely stunned and confused.  Now that I have seen it many times, I'm STILL confused.  To me, Moriarty has the upper hand the entire time.  He doen't know that Sherlock knows what Moriarty is planning, and he is convinced (by Sherlock) that Sherlock is "ordinary".  But then Sherlock says "I can win this if you give me the code", Moriarty doesn't believe him.  Moriarty still doesn't believe him unti Sherlock says "Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don't think for ONE SECOND, that I am one of them."  THAT'S when Moriarty responds with "I see, you're not ordinary, no, you're me."  Moriarty says this because he understands something that Sherlock has said, but not said- and I think it's a code that Moriarty has given Sherlock at some point beforehand and Sherlock has figured it out.  It could possibly be the recall code, it could be something else.  But Sherlock has said something to convince Moriarty that he could, in fact, get Moriarty to call off the killers- something that torture or arrest would not have done.  Moriarty only cares about beating Sherlock, winning the game.  He doesn't care about death or pain (we saw him get tortured by Mycroft's people already and he didn't talk).  I can't wait to see what it is, though.

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

... There is some trust, but why does John rebuff Sherlock when he is introduced as friend to Sebastian at the bank? John says "colleague" and you can see that Sherlock is taken a back.

 

Back OT, I'm still convinced that Sherlock says something only Moriarty understands.  ...  Moriarty still doesn't believe him unti Sherlock says "Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don't think for ONE SECOND, that I am one of them."  THAT'S when Moriarty responds with "I see, you're not ordinary, no, you're me."  Moriarty says this because he understands something that Sherlock has said, but not said- and I think it's a code that Moriarty has given Sherlock at some point beforehand and Sherlock has figured it out. ...  He doesn't care about death or pain (we saw him get tortured by Mycroft's people already and he didn't talk).

 

I'm also a bit puzzled about that "colleague" rather than "friend" scene. I wonder if perhaps John is still irritated about being repeatedly taken for Sherlock's boyfriend in "Study," and wants to avert any further misunderstanding of that sort.

 

And yes, back on topic! I'm still convinced that Sherlock's side-of-the-angels line is intended as a threat and taken as such. Yes, Moriarty had apparently been tortured by Mycroft's people, but that would presumably have been relatively civilized, as torture goes (we saw him being slapped in the face). He realizes that Sherlock is more like him than like Mycroft, and would torture him till he broke, regardless of what it necessitated. So he makes sure that can't happen.

 

OK -- are we back where we left off?

[bborchar]

I'm also a bit puzzled about that "colleague" rather than "friend" scene. I wonder if perhaps John is still irritated about being repeatedly taken for Sherlock's boyfriend in "Study," and wants to avert any further misunderstanding of that sort.

 

And yes, back on topic! I'm still convinced that Sherlock's side-of-the-angels line is intended as a threat and taken as such. Yes, Moriarty had apparently been tortured by Mycroft's people, but that would presumably have been relatively civilized, as torture goes (we saw him being slapped in the face). He realizes that Sherlock is more like him than like Mycroft, and would torture him till he broke, regardless of what it necessitated. So he makes sure that can't happen.

 

OK -- are we back where we left off?

 

 

We saw him slapped in the face...but we didn't see everything (torture is something that they can't really show on television during the hours Sherlock is on).  But how would Sherlock have the opportunity to torture Moriarty before Moriarty's people killed his friends?  He couldn't have done it up there, on the roof, with Moriarty's people watching.  And if Sherlock had left the roof, his friends would be killed.  But if Moriarty had been interrogated and tortured for weeks by his brother's people (it's obvious that Mycroft wouldn't play nice and just slap Moriarty), then how could Sherlock do anything to Moriarty in enough time to save his friends?  If Moriarty isn't afraid of death, he's not afraid of pain.  He's only afraid of losing.

[Carol the Dabbler]

You've made a bunch of good points, and you may well be right about all of this. Just one thing I definitely disagree on:

 

... If Moriarty isn't afraid of death, he's not afraid of pain.  He's only afraid of losing.

A significant number of people prefer death over protracted, extreme pain -- and will actually kill themselves if faced with that sort of agony, especially if there's no chance of eventual improvement.

[bborchar]

You've made a bunch of good points, and you may well be right about all of this. Just one thing I definitely disagree on:

 

... If Moriarty isn't afraid of death, he's not afraid of pain.  He's only afraid of losing.

A significant number of people prefer death over protracted, extreme pain -- and will actually kill themselves if faced with that sort of agony, especially if there's no chance of eventual improvement.

 

 

To be fair, pain to him is just living with "ordinary" people.  He's happy to die because he wants to escape from it.  To me, Moriarty just seems dead to everything and everyone other than Sherlock.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 He's happy to die because he wants to escape from it.  To me, Moriarty just seems dead to everything and everyone other than Sherlock.

I think a lot of people find life to be a burden at one time or another and if they can't break free of what ever is dragging them down emotionally, physically and it becomes a chronic thing then it's only a down ward spiraling depression with no end in sight, no light at the end of the tunnel and death is seen as the only relief.

 

I suppose for geniuses like Moriarty and Sherlock these episodes would be magnified a hundred times over. The canon has been researched by specialists in many fields and psychology was one of them. They believe that Sherlock may have been a manic depressive along with his being either bi-polar or very high end autisic. But he had his "Work". he was devoted to the scientific research of criminology and that helped keep him grounded as did the drugs in the canon. But even in the series he gets depressed and bored.

 

Moriarty was a criminal master mind but he didn't seem to have the same kind of focus that Sherlock did so yes, he lets himself "die", Sherlock his only source of focus but one he is bent on destroying...so why not go out together, in his mind.

 

I agree that there had to be something to convince Moriarty that Sherlock was capable of carrying out any kind of threat he put his mind to. What that is we don't know and I am content to wait until Season Three to find out.

[bborchar]

 

I agree that there had to be something to convince Moriarty that Sherlock was capable of carrying out any kind of threat he put his mind to. What that is we don't know and I am content to wait until Season Three to find out.

 

 

Well, really, we HAVE to wait until series 3 to find out everything for sure  I'm just wondering if it's something we could figure out from what we were given- I'm not sure of that, but I just wanted to see what other people thought.

[Julia Mae]

 

Why that moment would have to be, IMO, because he was convinced he had paid off his IOU.  Sherlock convinced him. 

 

That does make sense. Moriarty believed that Sherlock had no way out. Moriarty knew what a lot of people didn't fully yet realize. That Sherlock did have a heart, he did care and this was his Achilles's heel. If Moriarty could die being thought an innocent killed by Sherlock Holmes with no hope of redemption then he would have indeed won the game. Sherlock would take Moriarty's place as master criminal and Moriarty would be forever painted as the hero who brought him to heel.

 

 

Nice post.  I wasn't taking into account enough Moriarty pegging Sherlock as one who could care about others.  This makes Sherlock different from him.  Moriarty has the world divided up into two sets: ordinary people and himself (and people like himself of whom Sherlock comprised a set of 1). 

 

But my take on his motivation is a bit darker, I don't think he ever intended to come off the roof alive.  I think his plan was: Sherlock falls and then he is free to commit suicide.  Not only does he get his fondest wish, to stop "staying," but it he could make it look like Sherlock  killed him, which would really clinch destroying Sherlock Holmes.

 

I think what you said is the key to his believing Sherlock: he sees Sherlcok cares about people enough to die for them, so he moves Sherlock from the "like me" category to the "ordinary" category.  That would mean Sherlock wouldn't be willing to do anything. 

 

But Sherlock declares he is not one of them.  Jim's world only has two sets of people: himself and others.  Because he's, yanno, insane.  This moves Sherlock back into the "like me" column.,  And JIm is willing to do anything.  So, Sherlock must be, also.  Which frees Jim to die and obtain the victory.

 

My question is: if Jim wanted to die so much, why did he have to kill Sherlock first and destroy his reputation in the process?   Why not just kill himself and be done with it?  And, finally, did Sherlock plan this all along?  When he invited Moriarty up to the roof, did he think he could talk him into suicide?   Shades of the Killer Cabbie.