Episode 3.1, "The Empty Hearse"

[Caya]

 

It would be interesting to see John do something wrong for a change.

 

Study in Pink: John misjudged Mycroft (granted, who wouldn't have). He also picked the wrong building (50-50, admittedly, without Sherlock's eye for clues).

 

Blind Banker: He misjudged the situation in Soo Lin's flat, which could've ended up with Sherlock being killed. He left Soo Lin alone at the museum, which did end up with her being killed.

 

Great Game: The Case of the Vicious Feline Murder.

 

Scandal in Belgravia: Arguably leaving Sherlock alone with Irene, enabling her to drug him. I'd not count being fooled by Mrs. Hudson's faked distress, anybody would've been . He did believe Mycroft that Irene was dead but it's unclear if Mycroft himself believed he was telling the truth.

 

Hounds of Baskerville: He was wrong about the doggers, but the morse theory was sound imho. Not coming up with much in this one. Maybe trusting Sherlock with the coffee .

 

Reichenbach Fall: He believed Sherlock's callousness number about Mrs. Hudson. Granted, Sherlock's a good actor, but still.

 

Empty Hearse: He grew that mustache . Seriously, not coming up with much here either.

 

Sign of Three: He believed that the Mayfly Man was only after sex and had no other motive (going by the blog here, I admit).

 

His Last Vow: Anything I could list here (taking Mary back, not even reading the bloody stick, his [censored] conduct at the airfield) is highly subjective so I'll bow out.

 

I'm sure I've missed some, though .

[Carol the Dabbler]

Very few of those would warrant an apology, but it's always struck me as interesting that John apologizes so often in early episodes.  I actually did a statistical analysis last year, counting the number of times he said "sorry":

 

"Study in Pink" -- 18

"Blind Banker" -- 6

"Great Game" -- 7

"Scandal" -- 2

"Hounds" -- 3

"Reichenbach" -- 1

 

Admittedly, some of those weren't actual apologies, but that's still an awful lot.

 

[T.o.b.y]

Oh, I did not mean mistakes or errors of judgement! What I was thinking of was doing something "a bit not good" for a change. But it seems John never does.

[Caya]

*cough* airfield *cough* ... seriously, I misunderstood, then. Sorry!

[T.o.b.y]

No, no, that's okay. The airfield. Hm, I know what you mean, but again, I don't think that was the show's intention, just as in the case of the way he took Mary back.

 

I don't even know whether it could be made to appear in character - the original Dr Watson never, ever did anything at all reprehensible - but just once, I'd like to see a not-so-noble side of John. Just for a change.

[Arcadia]

 

 

I do not consider John to be weak.  On the contrary, I think of him as very strong, brave, and competent.  It's just that (and I know this sounds ridiculous) everyone picks on him.  Even people who are supposedly on his side.

 

Because he allows them too!  But I agree, it's not out of weakness, it's out of what I guess to be a kind of self-confidence; he knows he's capable, he doesn't have to bristle every time someone .... well, puts him down. But I'll bet he doesn't forget, either. I personally think that's why he seemed to take an instant dislike to Irene and Mycroft (and probably some others I've forgotten) -- they were dismissive towards him the minute they met him. 

 

Also I think sometimes he's just so gobsmacked by all the immature behavior around him that he's too stunned to react....!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yeah -- just how would one react sensibly to being used as a lab rat by one's best friend, or seeing him jump off a four-story building?

 

[Arcadia]

I sympathize with you, and I must say that even this friendly forum has sometimes gotten to me over the past few months. But please let me point out that it's not Mary who has disrupted fandom. She couldn't do any such thing, because she is fictitious. If you want to blame someone, I nominate Steven Moffat. He takes such obvious delight in fooling and shocking people that I suspect he may even be proud of the furor he's caused.

 

Moffat isn't just responsible for some major problems with the show,though, he's also responsible for an awful lot of the good stuff. So I find it hard to work up much of a rant against him.

I'd never even heard of the guy until I found this forum, and then I watched a few interviews and found him funny, clever and passionate about his creation. Then I READ a few interviews and found myself getting annoyed at him. Which I think is a cautionary tale; a) Sometimes it's better not to learn too much about a thing that you love; b : be wary of the transcribed word. They're often out of context, you don't hear the tone in which they're delivered, you don't see the visual cues a person gives off when they speak; etc. Do I think Moffat likes to misdirect the fans? Sure. If I were him, I'd want to protect any surprises I cooked up too. Do I think he deliberately tries to "disrupt" the fandom? Who knows, but I personally doubt it, because I don't see what there is to be gained from that. But it's a funny old world, anything's possible!

 

Don't know why I'm writing this actually, I don't really feel the need to defend or attack Moffat either way. Just something about it's been sticking in my head since I first read it, so I'm putting down my rather random thoughts on the subject.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

And that's not a bad thing. Thoughts are good and if they really stick around it's better to get them out because that means they are important to some one.

[throwAway_12345678]

I was wondering that when Sherlock was subjected with the carriage( I won't call them cars) why did he not ride the train. When I saw the episode for the first time I felt that the rat had hid himself inside the tube(under the seat perhaps). I felt Sherlock should have gone in the train to observe anything which stood out. Because he would have entered the same carriage he would have not found it and noticed it extremely fast.

After riding the tube i'm pretty sure he would have noticed a siderails onto which the train had stopped.

Also shouldn't the train journey have taken a little bit longer now making the average time taken and the time observed in the CCTV footage set suspicion.

 

I'm really sorry if this question has been discussed before. It is a bit difficult to find these questions if they have been questioned before.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I'm not sure that it has been discussed.....but we do tend to go round robin sometimes....and it keeps things flowing so not a problem, that I can see.

 

  But anyway....I don't know if riding the train would have helped, the scenery changing to fast even for Sherlock to process. The footage....and the maps, imhpov, would have been far more helpful. When I am planning trips and need to know road numbers and names, I find Google maps and Earth a far more helpful resource then jumping in the car and hoping to be able to find them by sight from in front of the steering wheel. At least with the maps he knew where the abandoned stations would be before hand.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I watched a few interviews and found him funny, clever and passionate about his creation. Then I READ a few interviews and found myself getting annoyed at him. Which I think is a cautionary tale; a) Sometimes it's better not to learn too much about a thing that you love; b : be wary of the transcribed word. They're often out of context, you don't hear the tone in which they're delivered, you don't see the visual cues a person gives off when they speak; etc. Do I think Moffat likes to misdirect the fans? Sure. If I were him, I'd want to protect any surprises I cooked up too. Do I think he deliberately tries to "disrupt" the fandom? Who knows, but I personally doubt it, because I don't see what there is to be gained from that....

I also doubt that he actually sets out to disrupt fandom. It seems much more likely that he simply enjoys coming up with surprising plot twists, and doesn't too much care whether they a] completely make sense or b] rile up the fans. While I will admit that his live-interview enthusiasm is contagious, he can still annoy me sometimes, even in context. But hey, it's his show, so who am I to argue?

 

 

I was wondering that when Sherlock was subjected with the carriage( I won't call them cars) why did he not ride the train. When I saw the episode for the first time I felt that the rat had hid himself inside the tube(under the seat perhaps). I felt Sherlock should have gone in the train to observe anything which stood out. Because he would have entered the same carriage he would have not found it and noticed it extremely fast.

After riding the tube i'm pretty sure he would have noticed a siderails onto which the train had stopped.

Also shouldn't the train journey have taken a little bit longer now making the average time taken and the time observed in the CCTV footage set suspicion.

I assume that one reason Sherlock didn't start his investigation by simply taking a Tube ride (from Westminster to St. James) is that the suspicious video was already a few days old.  So even if he took the exact same train, anyone who might have hidden inside the car would have left by then.  You do have a point, though -- the individual cars are presumably numbered, so if he'd asked to see that specific car, it should have quickly become apparent that it was missing.

 

Having ridden the tube myself a few times, I can say that it's awfully hard to see what's going on in the tunnel outside the train.  The interior of the car is brightly lit, while the tunnel itself is relatively dark.  Sherlock might have been able to arrange for the passenger-compartment lights to be turned off, but as Fox said, it's generally easier to see what's where on a map.  In this case, it wasn't quite so easy, because apparently that side tunnel wasn't on any of the maps -- which seems odd to me, because surely the maintenance crews would need to know it was there, even though it wasn't an active tunnel.  I guess that's the point where we need to avoid doing too much thinking!

 

Sherlock did notice that the trip on the security video had taken ten minutes instead of the usual five.  I think that's what made him count the cars, and realize that one was missing.

 

[Zain]

Oh, I did not mean mistakes or errors of judgement! What I was thinking of was doing something "a bit not good" for a change. But it seems John never does.

 

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...

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Even in canon Watson was hardly a saint. He aided and abetted Holmes in all kinds of shenanigans. Breaking and entering. Obstructing the work of the official police force and he's still considered to be better then Holmes in the area of developing a sense of moral responsibilities, being considered Holmes's moral compass.

[Slithytove]

I have always tended to put Dr Watson on a pedestal, right back to when I first read the stories as a kid. I adore Sherlock Holmes in both his original and current incarnations - the intelligence, the cynicism, the arrogance, the wit - but there is something deeply comforting about Watson. He is the epitome of the Victorian gentleman who maybe never existed but ought to have done - loyal, brave, kind and competent. What's not to love?

 

Of course, modern John is spikier than ACD's Watson, just as Sherlock is much ruder than Holmes. They live in different centuries, after all. Still, I see John as a man who is fundamentally good. Yes, he might do things that were illegal, such as shooting the cabbie or chinning the Chief Superintendent , but he did them out of loyalty to Sherlock. I suppose this is why I feel a bit let- down by John in S3, particularly in HLV. As Zain points out, he had had previous minor lapses in the past, but then he is only human. In S3, he seems different. Sherlock still sees him as the moral centre of Sherlock's world - "You keep me right" - but is he? After HLV, I seriously doubt it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe you've been putting the good Doctor on too tall a pedestal.  (He is , after all, the narrator of the original stories, and therefore in control of what gets told, and how, and what is omitted altogether.)

 

I freely admit to a strong prejudice in John's favor, but I really cannot see that he's lost his moral standing in S3.  Even though we've seen him in bewildering circumstances before, this time the circumstances are monumentally and personally bewildering.  There is no obvious right answer.  So (as usual) John takes Sherlock's word as his guide through the maze.

 

I still cannot see how doing as Sherlock asks (and begs) him to do could possibly constitute betraying Sherlock.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I still cannot see how doing as Sherlock asks (and begs) him to do could possibly constitute betraying Sherlock.

 

 

  I'm in the same camp. He wants to get rid of a person who has hurt him, betrayed Sherlock and yet Sherlock stands up for her. He doesn't know why Sherlock is so adamant to protect her....but the trusting and loyal man that he is, he is willing to continue to do so even though it's against his better judgement. He is the one feeling betrayed and shocked.

[Caya]

Yeah, well, that still leaves the airfield scene. But there are apparently no two people on this board (or maybe planet) who interpret that one quite the same way .

[T.o.b.y]

I have always tended to put Dr Watson on a pedestal, right back to when I first read the stories as a kid. I adore Sherlock Holmes in both his original and current incarnations - the intelligence, the cynicism, the arrogance, the wit - but there is something deeply comforting about Watson. He is the epitome of the Victorian gentleman who maybe never existed but ought to have done - loyal, brave, kind and competent. What's not to love?

 

Interesting! When I read the books as a young teen, I saw Holmes as the Victorian gentleman (hero) who never existed but should have done. I totally idolized him, and while I loved his eccentricity, I never realized his potential for darkness until I saw "Sherlock"! I love it, of course, and when I read the stories now, I notice so much about him I never did before.

 

The original Dr Watson I used to find kind of boring. I think Moffat's / Gatiss's / Thompson's / Martin Freeman's version of him is brilliant. It's true enough to the original, but more to the things you have to read between the lines than those you are told outright. I never properly appreciated Watson before I saw "Sherlock".

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

The original Dr Watson I used to find kind of boring. I think Moffat's / Gatiss's / Thompson's / Martin Freeman's version of him is brilliant. It's true enough to the original, but more to the things you have to read between the lines than those you are told outright. I never properly appreciated Watson before I saw "Sherlock".

 

Me neither.  I had never read the original stories, but all I saw in the Granada series was Jeremy Brett's wonderful Holmes.  Since enjoying Martin Freeman's performance, I have become something of a Watson aficionado, and can now also appreciate David Bruce and Edward Hardwicke's doctor, as well as Conan Doyle's original.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

About putting John on a pedestal, I suppose I do the same. In comparison with Sherlock, and on the surface, he comes off as more sensitive and morally guided. But I also put Sherlock on a pedestal, with all his bravery, and the big heart we see on occasion. Still, it's easier for me to get disappointed with John, since he's "supposed" to know better, whereas I tend to brush of Sherlock's behavior with, "Oh, that's just Sherlock."

 

Except when he fakes his death and doesn't tell his friends.

[Slithytove]

Don't get me wrong, Holmes was always my favourite character - ditto Sherlock. One of the greatest literary characters of all time - maybe, in fact, the greatest. I just loved Dr Watson too. So kind, noble and faithful. A bit like a really nice dog, in fact.

 

As for John letting Sherlock down, you can be loyal but still have a mind and morals of your own. If Sherlock says Mary didn't shoot to kill, John can still say, "Rubbish, I'm an army doctor, I've dealt with trauma, I know the damage caused by a gunshot wound." Sherlock can say "You can trust her" but John can still say, "Well, I don't.". That wouldn't be disloyal, it would be common sense. What feels like letting Sherlock down is not having that deep bond which says, " I don't care what excuses she makes, or you make for her, she hurt you - I nearly lost you, forever this time - and I can't get past that.".

 

That's what I wanted him to say, not to go on about the problems of her past and her future, as if he'd just found out that she used to be a stripper, or had been caught kissing the milkman, or something.....

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yeah, I know.  I do wish Moftiss hadn't had Mary shoot Sherlock.  So I cling to the fact that she did warn him, and yet he persisted, putting her into an untenable position.  So maybe she didn't make the best choice, but she had about half a second to decide.  And Sherlock is well aware of all that.

 

I really wish they'd had Sherlock actually make a grab for the gun, so when it went off it could have been an accident.  And left out all that nonsense about surgical precision.  At least it sounds to me like grasping at different straws from the ones I'm clinging to -- but it seems to make sense to both Sherlock and Mary, so who am I to complain?

 

[Slithytove]

Even if it made no sense to Mary, it was in her interests to agree. She wasn't likely to say "Surgical precision? Rubbish. Actually, I was aiming for his heart....". No wonder she accepted the excuse, however ridiculous, when it was offered.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Even if it made no sense to Mary, it was in her interests to agree.

 

 

Undoubtedly.  So her apparent agreement tells us precisely nothing.

 

Perhaps I should have said "... it seems to make sense to Sherlock (and he's the one who was shot), so who am I to complain?"