Episode 3.1, "The Empty Hearse"

[Let's_have_dinner]

I thought exactly the same thing about John's moustache and not having it when Greg went round in the mini episode lol.

[Janie]

Something (nit picky, I know) I've noticed... according to John's blog, the webisode with Lestrade taking him the box of Sherlock's things occurred about a month before Sherlock's return. John was clean shaven in the webisode, and I remember we were speculating on the time frame last week and I commented that John could have easily grown the mustache in a few weeks, as some men grow facial hair rather quickly. 

 

However, Mary comments that John has had the mustache for six months. 

 

 

I've noticed that too! Well, nothing is perfect, not even our favourite tv show 

[The Rani]

Ok here's for my first official comment on the episode: AWESOME! I think that sums it up quite nicely 

[RV0889]

BTW, did anyone not find it a bit below gatiss and moffat to come up with an idea as stupid as a bomb having a switch? I mean, it is just like saying "Haha, Hurt Locker, you are just a fool." I mean every army has a highly specialized unit from bomb disposal. I was really disappointed by that thing, but i think they had to come up with something silly like that to accomodate the following scene. I don't know, i just found it really silly,

[Let's_have_dinner]

BTW, did anyone not find it a bit below gatiss and moffat to come up with an idea as stupid as a bomb having a switch? I mean, it is just like saying "Haha, Hurt Locker, you are just a fool." I mean every army has a highly specialized unit from bomb disposal. I was really disappointed by that thing, but i think they had to come up with something silly like that to accomodate the following scene. I don't know, i just found it really silly,

 

Yeah, I kind of know what you mean. I'm sort of at war with myself on that one - part of me is saying "ha! An off switch! Brilliant - and yes it makes sense for there to be an off switch or, as Sherlock says, terrorists could get themselves into all sorts of trouble!" and then another part of me is saying, "hang on a minute... an off switch? I've never seen that in any movie, or heard of a bomb disposal team being called in to do the highly difficult job of flicking a switch..."

 

So, yeah. Conflicted. But my love for the show will inevitably lead me to the former conclusion 

[RV0889]

I agree. Love for the show will sort of make me think it was a good idea. But i was just discussing this with my friends and all of them kind of thought this was a bit poor from the writers. Even a small numeric code to undo the bomb which sherlock deduces would have had made more sense.

 

Like Sherlock says "Everybody's a critic"eh?

[Caya]

Well even if there was such a switch, I doubt that a professional bomb disposal squad would just, you know, flip it. Who says that this isn't a trap, put on the bomb in case someone discovers it, and using the switch will instead cause it to detonate instantly?

 

Sherlock, of course, is his usual overconfident self in that situation and simply turns the bomb off.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Just in case nobody's posted this yet:
 

'Two Days in London' contains exclusive photography, and interviews with Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. 
 
It also contains spoilers for S3E1: The Empty Hearse, so we advise against reading the article unless you’ve seen the episode.
 
Thus warned, head to Sherlockology.com to read the article now.

 
Now 'scuse me, I'm leaving before I see anything....

[Mycroft]

It was brilliant, I loved it. A few things bothered me of course.

 

I'll start with the crime: an underground train-bomb blowing up the Houses of Parliament... A Guy Fawkes inspired storyline is fine, but it needed to be original, this reminded me way too much of V For Vendetta. The deus ex machina solution also bothered me a bit, just switch the bomb off? Really? Come on now... The crime/mystery wasn't the important thing about the episode though, the centre piece was Sherlock and John's reunion and it's aftermath, quite right too. A more realistic reaction from John Watson than the one we got in the canon, but not completetly over the top, just the right amount of violence . DI Lestrade's reaction was brilliantly simple, "Oooh, you bastard!" and a hug, love it. And Mrs Hudson's reaction was hilarious, she should've hit him with that pan though, a missed opportunity .

 

"The Empty Hearse" or is that the "online fandom"? And the multiple theories/fantasies in the episode, a courteous nod to the fans or a sly dig? I prefer to think the latter.

 

How he did it... Even if it isn't the real one, I'm completely happy with Sherlock's reveal to Anderson, everything slotted into place nicely. I don't understand how some people can be disappointed with it, like Mark Gatiss said at the Comic Con panel, "The important thing to remember is; there really are only a few ways you can fall of a roof and survive, it's not Black Magic, alas." Looking at some of the reactions on Twitter is beggar's belief, I don't know what they were expecting to see. A thing that did bother me about this though was the fact that Sherlock and Mycroft new all along about what Moriarty was doing, it seemed like a bit of a cop-out, should've elaborated a bit more on that.

 

The stand-out for me was Mary Morstan, brilliantly played by Amanda Abbington. I found her intriguing and I agree with previous posts that there's something not quite right with her, I like the idea that Magnussen is somehow involved.

 

A great start, very excited for the next episode.

 

 

Mycroft.

 

[Loekie]

Well, Magnussen is supposed to be a blackmailer so I think he knows something about Mary's past so she's being blackmailed. I don't believe she's a villain but she definitely has a secret.

 

Maybe Mary is a double spy. Hired by Mycroft but blackmailed by Magnussen. And Mycroft knows that because Mycroft knows everything. So if Sherlock would have been too late with the bonfire, Mycroft would have intervened. Maybe the bonfire was modified and John would not have been burned at all.

The fire was high, but John was not severely burned. Maybe Magnussen was looking to thát over and over again.

[The Rani]

So John says, "So just your brother, Molly Hooper, and 100 tramps."

Sherlock: "Ha, no! 25 at most."

 

He forgot to tell him about the entire internet knowing in an alternate universe i.e us!  

 

[sherlockandjohn]

Oh, no! What would John say if he knew that we have been on to the secret all the time?! Going into hiding from John's fist

[wildwoodflower]

I thought the clue that (they thought that) everybody missed was that sound the mobile made - which now was shown as Sherlock texting Mycroft. As for out of character, dunno - Sherlock asking Moriarty for a moment alone (for texting) and using the word please? Not exactly common vocabulary with him.

 

About why he would explain this all to Anderson, well, that's a poser. Maybe he felt compelled, in his own odd way, to "reward" Anderson's loyalty? The man had had more reasons to dislike him than Donovan, yet he was the one who truly regretted what he'd done and even got fired for his trouble. Sherlock did realize how much Molly had done for him, so it's not entirely out of character.

 

I think there was a lot of ambiguity in that scene so that the audience is meant to wonder was it real or was the conspiracy theorist having a psychotic break?  At the end of the scene with the empty chair and the camera set-up and the empty chair and then Anderson ripping things off the wall weeping, I figured it had been another imagined 'how he did it".

 

[BLS_Pro]

I must say I was disappointed by "The Empty Hearse".  Gatiss' episodes have never been my favorites of the series, but this simply wasn't even close to the quality of writing and storytelling I've come to expect from "Sherlock". 

Briefly, the multiple plots in this episode were not really solved by Sherlock but instead relied on luck/coincidence (and not more than a bit of plain stupidity). 

Concerning the TERRORIST PLOT, Sherlock is essentially handed the vital clue by the mystery villain:  Guy Fawkes.  And even then Sherlock doesn't make the connection.  Moreover, a terrorist attack is due in close proximity to Guy Fawkes Day and that connection isn't even on Sherlock's (or Mycroft's) radar??  The moment Sherlock's "rat" disappeared under Westminster, he should have solved the case.  Guy Fawkes and a mystery below Parliament would simply have been too much of a coincidence to ignore.

Oh, and about that "rat".  Sherlock tells Mycroft that all his rats are acting normally.  Yet the one rat had disappeared (apparently not to resurface till much later).  And yet Sherlock finds this out, not from his homeless network, but by the sheer coincidence of a rail fan coming to him about it?  Really?!!?

Oh, and when shown the rail video of the man who disappears, Sherlock doesn't recognize the "rat" immediately?  John recognized him right away in some grainy pictures from across the room - and did so without having been 'focused' on him for two days!

Sherlock was always a step behind on this plot.  It wasn't his actions or his deductions which truly solved it.  He almost literally had to be hit over the head before he made the obvious connections.

Concerning the REUNION PLOT (getting John to come back), Sherlock doesn't 'solve' this problem either - though he definitely got the ball rolling with his THREE PUNCHLINE PLAN. 

The sequence in which Sherlock is punched by John three times is not Sherlock being an idiot when it comes to human nature (as John always claims).  Sherlock's 'wink and nod' response when Mary makes that very claim indicates Sherlock (as has been demonstrated over and over again) truly does know human nature.  His response indicates that Sherlock has purposefully provoked John all night.  Why?  Because Sherlock knew John would naturally be angry - angry at three things (which is why there were three PUNCH LINES to the sequence).  John would be angry that Sherlock had lied to him.  John would be angry that Sherlock had told the truth to others.  And John would be angry that Sherlock simply expects John to come back now. 

But Sherlock also knew that John would ultimately come back because he knows John does miss "this" - ie misses The Game.  And Sherlock wanted John to come back now rather than later.  So Sherlock purposefully provoked John's anger (which is why Sherlock's initial joke about the mustache comes across as awkwardly as his frantic fear in the train car at the end.  It was all acting on Sherlock's part).  In other words, instead of Sherlock letting John do a slow boil, thus taking an untold amount of time for John to satisfy and get over his anger and outrage, Sherlock brought John to boil immediately on all the things he would get angry about.

And we see that Sherlock's tactic works.  It only takes a day of his mind spinning (like Mrs. Hudson's brush) for him to get over it.  Then it's off with the mustache.  (We don't even get to see why he gets over it.  We just see the conclusion that he did.)  And then it takes less than a day more of boring work for John to relent and admit he does miss The Game.  So in less than 48 hrs he returns to 221b on his own.

So this REUNION PLOT is much more of a fizzle than any real drama.  Everything is a foregone conclusion that is resolved almost immediately.  There is no real question, choice, or conflict for anyone.  And, though Sherlock hurried it, John is the one who 'solved' it (mostly off-screen).  Sherlock did not.

 

Concerning the KIDNAPPING PLOT, John was saved by chance event, not purposeful action.  If not for the fact that the fire needed an accelerant, John would have died.  Sherlock wouldn't have saved John at all. 

John was saved by luck.

Concerning THE FALL PLOT, the story sets out to say it doesn't matter how Sherlock solved it.  And it makes fun of anyone in the audience who might complain that it is important - that a story is only as good as the logic and drama of its events.  So Sherlock doesn't resolve this plot satisfactorily (especially since many point out the flaws with the resolution Sherlock relates.)  You are simply supposed to be grateful that Sherlock lives - and stop worrying about HOW.

Put simply, the story does a "bait & switch", saying THE FALL PLOT isn't important.  The how isn't important.  The story says (by means of John's explicit statement), that the REUNION PLOT is the only thing which is important.  Why Sherlock lied to John is what's important.

But even there we don't get satisfaction.  So then why did Sherlock lie to John?  Because John might blab???  Please!  The fact that Sherlock told so many people - including his parents(!) - makes his reason seem complete "facile".  John provided a better - a truthful and important - reason to Mrs. Hudson for why he not contacting her the entire two years.  And Sherlock could have been allowed some answer which mirrored John's, thus letting John see they are the same and thus forgiving him (and thus giving the audience reason to accept John's forgiveness.  It would be EARNED.)  That would have been good writing.  Instead Sherlock is given - and gives - no real good reason.  And thus John forgives for no real good reason (especially after Sherlock again betrays him in the train car and laughs at having thus lied to him once more). 

 

Far from earning the forgiveness, as many have indicated it feels wrong that John didn't punch sherlock again.  In other words, the success of the REUNION plot seems out of character and totally UNEARNED.  It is a complete contradiction.

By having John simply accept Sherlock's original betrayal and his newest betrayal, the writers engage in a third betrayal: they betray the audience.

 

So both THE FALL PLOT and THE REUNION PLOT - ie the two major plots of the story - are ended extremely unsatisfactorily (which is an understatement). 

Overall, Sherlock himself didn't really achieve anything in this story.  He didn't earn anything by means of his actions.  It was all coincidence, chance, and the actions of others (even Sherlock's return to London was Mycroft's act, not his own!).

That is simply bad writing. 

 

And that is why I consider "The Empty Hearse" not only to be the very worst of the "Sherlock" stories but, because it is the climax of "The Reichenbach Fall" it actually diminishes one of the best of the "Sherlock" stories.

I expect far better from "Sherlock"

[BLS_Pro]

 

It also appeared in a really odd place in the episode...I wonder why they decided to put it right in the middle of the tense bomb disposal section

 

That was a writer's cheat.  It was inserted, not for any purpose of story, but to try to soften for the audience the brutal fact that Sherlock just betrayed John AGAIN.  And this time, Sherlock lied for no apparant purpose BUT to lie.  If that long expanse of time hadn't been there to distract the audience - to remove it from the heavy emotion of the moment - the audience would have really balked at John now forgiving Sherlock for everything.  They would have wanted John to deck Sherlock again and walk away, thus leaving the reunion story unfulfilled.

 

Does anyone have a good theory as to WHY - after demonstrating he DOES know human nature and John's nature specifically - Sherlock makes this one big joke at John's expense and for no apparent reason?

 

More importantly, does anyone have a good theory as to WHY John now simply accepts this additional betrayal? 

 

This seems to be a really BAD characterization of both - and a really bad way to end the Reunion Plot.

[Janie]

Wow, you really didn't like it, RadCap, did you? I was a bit disappointed after I watched it for the first time but after second viewing I completely changed my mind. Now I think it's one of the best episodes ever. 

I don't know if you've noticed but Sherlock, as the character, isn't supposed to be perfect. He has his flaws. I think that expecting that John forgives him immediately and making fun of his mustache and then the joke on the train, all that is perfectly in character. He was a bit nervous about meeting John so that's why he behaved like an idiot. This proves that he really didn't know much about human nature. He thought that John would be happy to see him and that everything would be ok. 

 

About the joke on the train. I think that he did it because he wanted to hear John say that he forgave him. It was mean but again, completely in character. And John always forgives Sherlock everything. I agree that he could have been angry a bit longer though. Apparently he was used to Sherlock's humour so maybe that's why he forgave him so easily. Anyway he was still much more angry than Watson in the canon. In the book he fainted at first and then went solving crimes with Holmes, perfectly happy that Holmes is back. So I think that's quite a big improvement.

[Karie]

 

 

That was a writer's cheat.  It was inserted, not for any purpose of story, but to try to soften for the audience the brutal fact that Sherlock just betrayed John AGAIN.  And this time, Sherlock lied for no apparant purpose BUT to lie.  If that long expanse of time hadn't been there to distract the audience - to remove it from the heavy emotion of the moment - the audience would have really balked at John now forgiving Sherlock for everything.  They would have wanted John to deck Sherlock again and walk away, thus leaving the reunion story unfulfilled.

 

 

I STILL wanted him to deck him again and walk away! 

 

 

 

Does anyone have a good theory as to WHY - after demonstrating he DOES know human nature and John's nature specifically - Sherlock makes this one big joke at John's expense and for no apparent reason?

 

 

 

Because he's an ass who doesn't handle emotions well and he actually did want John to forgive him, sincerely, but then after that happened he didn't know how to say,"Well, it's a good thing we're not about to blow up, because I missed you, too!" so he just started fake laughing to cover up his real tears and emotion?

 

Sorry, that's all I got. 

 

 

 

More importantly, does anyone have a good theory as to WHY John now simply accepts this additional betrayal? 

 

 

Because, underneath all of John's hurt and anger, he really does love Sherlock (in whatever way), and he knows what it's like to have grieved for him for two years, and can't bring himself to walk away from him again, after everything, now that he's back from the dead and they've survived death again (John twice in 24 hours).  Holding a grudge is easy when it's not someone you love, and even less so when you've endured losing that person, even if only for a while. Relief makes people appreciative and forgiving. 

[Caya]

 

Because he's an ass who doesn't handle emotions well and he actually did want John to forgive him, sincerely, but then after that happened he didn't know how to say,"Well, it's a good thing we're not about to blow up, because I missed you, too!" so he just started fake laughing to cover up his real tears and emotion?

 

I think you just nailed it. When John says he forgives him, for a moment, he looks so much like a child.

 

 

(source)

 

And then of course he starts cracking jokes 'cause he's not able to cope with that kind of deep emotion overload.

 

Yeah, it does seem unfair that John is forced to be open about his emotions while Sherlock weasels out, but John always had to be the grown-up in their relationship.

 

Also, let me echo that this episode does get better on rewatch. A lot of nuance gets lost in all that flash bang.

[Zain]

Honestly, I think everybody needs to create their own head canon - and while I agree with some of your points, I search for explanations, and try to reason everything. I don't consider neither the reunion plot nor the fall plot as unsatisfactory. I've already accomodated most of the facts or leads we've been given in The Empty Hearse.

 

Sherlock didn't know he could stop the bomb. I truly think he was worried and shaken; tense, to say the least. He wanted John out of there. When he switched the bomb off, that tension resulted in giddiness. It's basic human emotion due to the release of adrenaline and the time needed to "come down." Besides, Sherlock always overdid it. To me, his reaction is entirely in character. I expected that (while my inner fan screamed 'let it be true, just for the sake of the fics').

 

I agree, hoever. The Anderson scene with the "Fall solution" was used to alleviate the accumulated tension. This scene doesn't work unless there's a cut.

Seriously, I don't think John has such a hard time forgiving Sherlock for this. He already suspected it, and then he panicked, and in the end, this "joke" only proves that he still has got the same man in front of him that once tricked him in Baskerville. I actually think this scene is reassuring for John. He still has a grasp of who stands in front of him, he still "knows" Sherlock. John is angry as hell, and nobody would blame him for it. But in the end, this is whom he missed. It's catharsis.

 

My head canon. Maybe that gives you a possibilty to come to terms with The Empty Hearse. But I suppose everybody has to find their own answers.

[T.o.b.y]

Wow, be without internet access for a day and a half and this place is so full of new food for thought that I have no idea where to begin in response. I still have not mastered multiquote, so either bear with my now seemingly disconnected ramblings or ignore this post altogether (recommended).

 

- Overall evaluation of the episode: I'm glad to find that I was not the only one who didn't like it, at least not initially. It does get more likeable on re-watching, but I simply can't get used to the "new" style (yet?). I fell in love with this series (and, might as well be honest, with the title character all over again after having had a "thing" for the original for years) through "The Great Game" and I already preferred the first three episodes to the second season. In my eyes, the show was perfect when it started. That, of course, poses an obvious question: How do you continue something perfect? You can't, really. Because either you repeat yourself over and over again, which the audience hates (and no repeat is ever quite as good as the original) or you have to change things and play with new ideas so it doesn't get boring. Then people like me come along and whine

At least the acting is still superb. And Mary, from the little we've seen of her, fits right in and promises to be a real addition.

 

- Mary: I really can't imagine they'd turn her into any kind of "bad guy", it would be just too far away from the way Doyle wrote her character. There are hints that Magnussen might be targeting her, but there are plenty of potential reasons for that which don't require her to be "evil" in any way or working for him.

 

- "Everybody needs their own head canon": Of course we do. I think that's why they purposely left a bit of doubt as to whether "The Solution" as told to Anderson is really the correct one, so anybody who is really disappointed with it can cling to their own idea if that makes them feel better and continue to enjoy the show.

 

- Comparison to The Empty House and the Doyle stories in general: My impression that history repeats itself with this series in context of Doyle's detective is getting stronger. After Holmes' return, the tone and style of the stories changed in a similar way as they do here: There was less focus on deduction and puzzles and more on the "adventurous" side of things as well as on the relationship between the characters. Two stories I in fact particularly like have no "proper" case and no deduction at all: "The Empty House" and "Charles Augustus Milverton". In the latter, Holmes only gets away with his actions by pure chance - as has been complained about here! I have no idea whether this is a deliberate feat of adaptation, but noticing it has made me a lot more tolerant (even appreciative) of the way "Sherlock" is developing and so I'll cling to it, I guess.

 

- The "bomb scene": I think Sherlock's need for forgiveness is very real, he only uses a deception to procure it because, as has been pointed out here, he does know something about human nature and was aware that he would need to give John quite a push. I think a lot of the emotion is supposed to be real: repentance, urgency, affection. The rest is Holmesian flare for drama and love of mischief - which I have always been fond of. I'm only waiting for his eyes to twinkle...

 

I think Molly just gets better and better. The actress is amazing. I really like the scene where she asks Sherlock "what was today about?" and how she looks after him saying "maybe it's my type". I'm not any kind of a "shipper" (ugh, that word) and if they were forced to pair off Sherlock with anybody she wouldn't even be my first choice, but that doesn't keep me from really appreciating a quiet, truthful, realistic moment in an episode so loud and fast and spectacular. I mean, what girl or woman hasn't been there? Molly is such a great representative of wallflowers all over the world (and I assure you I mean "wallflower" in a nice way and definitely include myself in that category).

 

My personal bugbear is the scene in the beginning where Sherlock is tortured. That alone would be bad enough. I do not enjoy seeing any character being treated like that, not even villains, and it seemed to just go on and on while I fought the impulse to smash the screen in a fruitless attempt to grab him and pull him out of there. But to top it all off, it turns out his own brother calmly sat by having a laugh. I have no idea why this was written. Maybe so they could justify drastic changes in Sherlock's personality by pointing to his "traumatic experiences"?

 

All in all, I don't think this episode will ever be a favorite of mine, but I'm still very eagerly waiting for my DVDs and expect to get a lot of fun from watching it again and again, fawning over the characters, squealing at particularly good bits of acting and noticing more and more references to the old stories I'm fond of.

[BLS_Pro]

 

 

Because he's an ass who doesn't handle emotions well and he actually did want John to forgive him, sincerely, but then after that happened he didn't know how to say,"Well, it's a good thing we're not about to blow up, because I missed you, too!" so he just started fake laughing to cover up his real tears and emotion?

 

I think you just nailed it. When John says he forgives him, for a moment, he looks so much like a child.

 

 

(source)

 

And then of course he starts cracking jokes 'cause he's not able to cope with that kind of deep emotion overload.

 

Yeah, it does seem unfair that John is forced to be open about his emotions while Sherlock weasels out, but John always had to be the grown-up in their relationship.

 

But Sherlock is not an ass.  And he certainly can and does handle emotions well.  If you note, it is John who says he doesn't handle these types of emotions well, to which Sherlock clearly states "I know".  And it is true.  Where Sherlock simply doesn't feel the need to express his emotions most of the time, John really has trouble expressing his emotions.  For proof, look at his explanation why he never talked to Mrs. Hudson for 2 years - and how he really stumbled through the marriage proposal.

 

It is clear that Sherlock manufactured the situation in order to get John to say 'I forgive you' - because he knows John has trouble expressing this kind of emotion.  But in any real drama, such a fraudulently cajoled forgivness would be recinded immediately because of the fraud.  It would be an example that the forgiveness had not been earned and thus not deserved.

 

Here the fraud is simply laughed out of existence as if it means nothing.  That is the opposite of being a "grown up".

 

Having John simply accept - for no reason - the original betrayal and then this betrayal by Sherlock hurts the characterization of both Sherlock and John.  And it destroys any actual plot/story.  There is no resolution. 

 

There is simply a shrug and a giggle.

 

That is not great drama.  That isn't even mediocre drama.

 

[BLS_Pro]

Sherlock didn't know he could stop the bomb. I truly think he was worried and shaken; tense, to say the least.

 

No.  The whole thing was a setup.  Sherlock knew what he was going to do before he got there.  He lied to John about everything - including not having called the police etc.  He intended to use the situation to force a forgiveness from John. 

 

It was all an intentional fraud to achieve the end he sought.

 

[BLS_Pro]

I don't know if you've noticed but Sherlock, as the character, isn't supposed to be perfect. He has his flaws. I think that expecting that John forgives him immediately and making fun of his mustache and then the joke on the train, all that is perfectly in character. He was a bit nervous about meeting John so that's why he behaved like an idiot. This proves that he really didn't know much about human nature. He thought that John would be happy to see him and that everything would be ok. 

 

About the joke on the train. I think that he did it because he wanted to hear John say that he forgave him. It was mean but again, completely in character. And John always forgives Sherlock everything. I agree that he could have been angry a bit longer though. Apparently he was used to Sherlock's humour so maybe that's why he forgave him so easily. Anyway he was still much more angry than Watson in the canon. In the book he fainted at first and then went solving crimes with Holmes, perfectly happy that Holmes is back. So I think that's quite a big improvement.

I am truly surprised by how many people simply dismiss Sherlock as an "idiot".  Why are so many happy to write him off as simply not knowing what he is doing - despite facts to the contrary (for instance, his wink and nod to Mary, indicating he knew exactly what he was doing all night with John, etc).

 

There is an enormous difference between not adhering to social expectations and being an "idiot" or an "ass" etc..  He might be callous when showing off his intellect (think Molly at Xmas in Scandal), but he recognizes when he has hurt a person he cares for and has no difficulty knowing and doing the right thing to make it up (his truly heartfelt apology and kiss, which shocked both Molly and John.  Not even they get the fact that Sherlock *does* know human nature - and thus are constantly surprised when their assumption in this regard is continually contradicted.)

 

Sherlock is not an idiot.  He knew what he was doing the whole time.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

 

 

Does anyone have a good theory as to WHY - after demonstrating he DOES know human nature and John's nature specifically - Sherlock makes this one big joke at John's expense and for no apparent reason?

 

 

 

Because he's an ass who doesn't handle emotions well and he actually did want John to forgive him, sincerely, but then after that happened he didn't know how to say,"Well, it's a good thing we're not about to blow up, because I missed you, too!" so he just started fake laughing to cover up his real tears and emotion?

 

Maybe that's how they should have done that scene! But then, we would have missed out on the spectacularly comical meltdown of Sherlock, when he says "Your face!" and points at John.

 

I agree with you; he doesn't handle emotions well. He has some understanding of how people normally behave, and how they are supposed to behave, and he uses that in several instances. However, in a scene like the one in the restaurant, he is out of his depth, and he obviously hasn't premeditated it. His reactions here, I'm sure, are genuine. The writers of Sherlock are not simply stringing us along, having Sherlock toy with everyone's feelings. He may be a genius, but as John says, he can be pretty thick At least with emotions. I am sure that's how the writers mean to portray him.

[Earendil]

Well, I've seen this episode 3 times by now, so I think it's time to share my geeky observations and thoughts. I'm trying not to repeat all those things which were already discussed the last few days.

 

1. I liked all the fake explanations, especially the first one in the beginning of the episode. The music, the acting was superb as always. My new most favourite scene is when Sherlock jumps through the window, adjusts his coat, ruffles his hair and kisses Molly. *swoon* Now I have no doubt Benedict would be a perfect James Bond!

2. In mini-episode Anderson looks at the map of Europe and realizes that Sherlock is coming closer and closer to London, the last location is somewhere in Belgium, but in this episode Mycroft finds him in Serbia! How come?

3. One of Sherlock's clients, Mr Windibank and her stepdaughter is from the Canon, A case of identity.

4. One thing really bothered me: before a patient enters the doctor's office, Mary, as the nurse tells the symptoms of the patient to him and door is open. (?!) It's very embarassing if other patients are waiting outside... I know, they get different appointments, but still.

5. I was happy to see Benedict's parents. I recognized his father first, because I've seen him in Parade's end. Her mother still a beauty despite of her age.

6. How on earth does Sherlock know the first name of Anderson? And even if he knows, why doesn't he call him Anderson, as in the first two series? Sherlock considers Lestrade as his friend, but he calls him Graham instead of Greg as they meet. And why should be Anderson the first one who learns about how Sherlock survived the fall? So I think it's still not the final explanation. At the end of the episode John asks Sherlock, so maybe we are going to hear it next time.

7. At the end John tells Sherlock that he spoke to him at the grave and Sherlock says he heard him. It's a very nice scene, I love it, but it cannot be true. Sherlock was too far away to hear him, at least 50-60 meters (57-67 yards).