Episode 3.1, "The Empty Hearse"

[Slithytove]

I don't find Sherlock's behaviour in the train to be out of character, given that he is manipulative and prone to inappropriate social responses. In the previous episodes, he manipulated other people's emotions - particularly poor Molly's - to get what he wanted, and he is more than capable of doing the same to John. After all, this is the man who tried to drug John and then calmly observed his terrified response to hallucinations!

 

Sherlock's desire for forgiveness is genuine, because he wants John back in his life, but he uses emotional manipulation to get it because he doesn't really understand why he should not do it. He does not understand socially acceptable behaviour either - he is openly excited by the prospect of serial killers, or the kidnapping of small children, he is brusque with the frightened and bereaved, he blurts out the details of people's private lives.....Yes, he does have real emotions but h does not understand what behaviour is or is not acceptable. Therefore it is quite in character for him to manipulate John into expressing forgiveness and then to burst out laughing, because he does not realise that it is inappropriate.

 

That is surely the reason why he has only one friend....

[BLS_Pro]

I don't find Sherlock's behaviour in the train to be out of character, given that he is manipulative and prone to inappropriate social responses.

There has never been the suggestion that Sherlock is not trying to manipulate John.  Quite the opposite in fact.  That is the purpose of the lies.

 

Therefore it is quite in character for him to manipulate John into expressing forgiveness and then to burst out laughing

But what would lead Sherlock to believe that it would work?  As the example of HOUNDS shows, he isn't stupid when it comes to understanding human nature in general and John in particular.  Just as in that episode, Sherlock wants forgiveness.  But in that episode he didn't attempt to get it by lying to or otherwise abusing John.  If he had laughed at John, he would never have gotten an forgiveness.

 

He would have lost John.

 

So why did Sherlock do the opposite of what he has proven to himself works - if  forgiveness was his goal?  Why does he do the very thing which caused him the problem in the first place?  On what basis would he conclude that a repeat of the offense for which he sought forgiveness would somehow elicit forgiveness of the either offense?

 

Usually if you repeat a crime, you receive harsher punishment, not forgiveness!  Sherlock understands justice.  And that is not justice.

 

And that leads to the question of why did it work?  It shouldn't have worked - as the example from HOUNDS demonstrates.

 

The belief that it would work is out of character for Sherlock.  And the forgiveness of Sherlock's original betrayal by means of another betrayal by Sherlock is out of character for John.

 

It is only by believing both men are complete idiots that one claims either action is in character.  And neither one of them is an idiot.

 

[Caya]

People can be idiots when it comes to emotions. Even geniuses. Doesn't make them complete idiots.

 

How did Billy Joel put that in The Longest Time? "I have been a fool for lesser things" (apologies to all forum members who now have that song stuck in their head ).

 

If there is anyone who hasn't made an utter fool out of himself once or twice in matters of the heart (friendship as well as love), I envy their self-restraint. I sure can think of a couple episodes myself that I'm not particularly proud of .

[BLS_Pro]

People can be idiots when it comes to emotions. Even geniuses. Doesn't make them complete idiots.

 

So they weren't idiots about this sort of thing before when they had the same sort of problem.  But suddenly, for no apparent reason, they've lost all the smarts they had then in this regard, and are idiots about it now???

 

That just doesn't wash.  It is bad characterization - especially for John (though almost equally for Sherlock)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

Oh-h-h-h, this discussion is becoming really interesting. I'm afraid we are badly over-thinking a scene that was probably written with nothing but a little entertainment in mind, but it's fun non the less, so what the...

 

It's very hard to figure out just how ignorant of human nature and social norms Sherlock is really supposed to be. Sometimes he seems clueless, sometimes the very opposite. He can be very callous and rude, but also very gentle and sensitive. I could put this off as bad writing (or different writers not in agreement on what the character is supposed to be like), but I prefer not to. After all, real people are contradictory and unpredictable like that, too. And it's fun that I never know what to expect from Sherlock and never can quite make out what's going on in his "funny old brain". He's really the greatest mystery of the show and I hope he'll never be solved.

 

As for John, I think it does make sense that he forgives Sherlock in spite of his rather tasteless "joke" about the bomb, but I'll have to do some thinking before I can put into words why, exactly. Will try, in case anybody is interested...

[Karie]

I think y'all may have talked me into buying the dvds, with all the discussion about commentary and Benedict's laughter. 

 

I can't believe that in just 3.5 hours we will be officially one episode away from the next hiatus.     

[Caya]

Hey, positive thinking - we still have two thirds of the current series ahead of us .

[Let's_have_dinner]

I think y'all may have talked me into buying the dvds, with all the discussion about commentary and Benedict's laughter. 

 

I can't believe that in just 3.5 hours we will be officially one episode away from the next hiatus.     

 

Don't say that - it's a depressing thought!   But we survived the last one, and this one will be easier because we'll have more episodes of Sherlock to watch than we did last time   And it'll be easier for me because I wasn't a member of this forum during the last hiatus!

 

And I am so in love with his laugh. When he laughs in Scandal when they're in Buckingham Palace... *swoon*

[BLS_Pro]

As an aside, while waiting for the second episode of this series, I'll note that before the airing of HEARSE Gatiss and Moffit kept claiming that Sherlock comes back and expects to simply pick things up where he left off as if nothing happened.  And they kept stating that was an unreasonable expectation on Sherlock's part.  Everyone has moved on and as Gatiss put it "really nothing will ever quite be the same again."

Yet in the course of a mere THREE DAYS, the writers end with things basically right back where they were.  Sherlock and John are back together solving crime as if Sherlock had never been gone - as if Sherlock had never supposedly betrayed John.

Seems the writers' contradict their own claims about Sherlock and his so-called unrealistic expectations.  Turns out they accepted those expectations as completely realistic.  Almost immediately, Sherlock is back to where he was when he left - with everyone (John, Molly, Lastrade, Mrs. Hudson, the Public, the Police - everyone).

Which is why I continue to say - even by the writers' own standards - this story was bad writing.

 

[T.o.b.y]

...before the airing of HEARSE Gatiss and Moffit kept claiming that Sherlock comes back and expects to simply pick things up where he left off as if nothing happened.  And they kept stating that was an unreasonable expectation on Sherlock's part.  Everyone has moved on and as Gatiss put it "really nothing will ever quite be the same again."

 

Yet in the course of a mere THREE DAYS, the writers end with things basically right back where they were.  Sherlock and John are back together solving crime as if Sherlock had never been gone - as if Sherlock had never supposedly betrayed John...

 

...Almost immediately, Sherlock is back to where he was when he left - with everyone (John, Molly, Lastrade, Mrs. Hudson, the Public, the Police - everyone).

 

Well, we will see whether everything is truly back to normal when the next episode comes round. But at the end of The Empty Hearse, it really does seem so.

 

The problem is (in my humble opinion, of course) that the show worked really well before and to keep it's magic going, it would be neither wise nor possible to change a lot about the characters' dynamic. So ultimately, everything had to be "normal" again. I do agree with you that getting there felt a bit rushed and not entirely satisfactory. But then, the source, the story "The Empty House", is even more abrupt. Holmes disguises as an old book seller, gives Watson the shock of his life, Watson faints, is fed some brandy, listens to a long (and rather unbelievable) explanation with awe and wonder, then they get in a cab and it is "indeed like old times when, at that hour, I found myself seated beside him in a hansom, my revolver in my pocket and the thrill of adventure in my heart". They hunt down Moran, there's a neat invigorating little fight and then back to Baker St, Mrs Hudson and the fireside.

 

Compared to that, Moffat, Gatiss and Co gave us quite a little human drama...

 

[BLS_Pro]

The problem is (in my humble opinion, of course) that the show worked really well before and to keep it's magic going, it would be neither wise nor possible to change a lot about the characters' dynamic. So ultimately, everything had to be "normal" again.

I agree completely.  It was never going to change.  Just as John was never going to die in the bonfire and neither of them was going to die in the train bomb.  That is why it is bad writing to make either the return to normalcy or survival of an explosion the primary plot question.  It is a foregone conclusion.  (That's why everyone focused on HOW Sherlock survived - and why Moffat revealed Sherlock alive at the end of FALL - because everyone knew that Sherlock would survive).   Unless you do plan on changing things, there is no drama or suspense in such plots.

 

Which is why they had to resort to comedy instead - because they dismissed the one plot that everyone couldn't predict and chose to focus on plots which the audience knows the outcome of beforehand.  The comedy here is an attempt to distract from the fact that you know the conclusion - and that no drama was built in getting there. 

 

We see one very short shot of John unable to sleep.  Then he's decided to cut off his mustache.

We see a few shots of John bored at work.  Then he's decided to return to 221b.

We see less than 24 hours of John and the 'conflict' is essentially resolved.

 

WOW.  That is amazing drama!  What conflict! /sarcasm

 

And that is the major plot?!? 

 

That is plain bad writing.

 

I do agree with you that getting there felt a bit rushed and not entirely satisfactory. But then, the source, the story "The Empty House", is even more abrupt. Holmes disguises as an old book seller, gives Watson the shock of his life, Watson faints, is fed some brandy, listens to a long (and rather unbelievable) explanation with awe and wonder, then they get in a cab and it is "indeed like old times when, at that hour, I found myself seated beside him in a hansom, my revolver in my pocket and the thrill of adventure in my heart". They hunt down Moran, there's a neat invigorating little fight and then back to Baker St, Mrs Hudson and the fireside.

 

Compared to that, Moffat, Gatiss and Co gave us quite a little human drama...

Indeed.  When one compares the two, Gatiss' story has more drama.  But merely comparing one to the other doesn't make either of them good writing.  It merely makes one better than the other.  Of course, just as there are degrees of good, there are also degrees of bad.

 

The original story for SCANDAL was pretty lame as well.  But what Moffat did with it was brilliant.  THAT was good writing.

 

 

PS:  I misspoke.  It took a whole four days, not three, to return to normal. 

[Zain]

You're a bit aggressive, aren't you, RedCap?

The episode must have truly hit you hard. 

 

Would you truly say that there would have been more suspense if they hadn't revealed at the end of series two that Sherlock survived? I think that rather unlikely, especially with the commission of a third season. It would have been quite boring to air a series named "Sherlock" which was about how Scotland Yard and John solve crimes with the guy the series is named after six feet under. There never was any doubt that Sherlock survived the fall. Not to me, at least. It's a stupid way to kill of a character - any writer who wants to sink the "message in" makes sure that there's no doubt at all. Otherwise the audience/reader will not accept the death and the effect you want to achieve doesn't take hold.

 

In a way, every TV show has got a foregone conclusion. Unless it is the very last episode of the very last season, there is a high chance the protagonist will survive whatever's thrown at him... 

 

The episode focuses on reintroducing Sherlock; the bomb incident is used as a way to "lock in" both main characters (for catharsis) while the Guy Fawkes Incident allows for a "faster" pacing. This is standard, it is by no means bad writing. The content might not agree with everybody, but I wouldn't dare call this bad writing. These are well-known mechanisms of writing, and Aristotle would "agree" with you - resolving a conflict in less than 24 hours makes for amazing drama in basic drama theory. It might not be good in real life, but as long as you draw out the right scenes and make room for introspection, you can resolve major issues in writing (screen writing included) even in less time. Utterly depends on discourse. Or you can do so in four days. Think of "on the run" movies - they often are resolved in 24 hours, too. The suspense makes for density which results in fast pacing. There you need to slow down by putting in dialogues. The Empty Hearse functions the other way around; it needs action to allow for a faster pacing.

 

... God, sorry for throwing so much "philosophy of writing" at you. Didn't mean to. I just had this itch in my fingers because you mentioned "bad writing" three times. I can't argue with you on "bad charaterization" because that's subjective. However, "bad writing" is more than harsh.

[BLS_Pro]

Would you truly say that there would have been more suspense if they hadn't revealed at the end of series two that Sherlock survived?

I believe you've misunderstood my argument, because that is the exact opposite of what I was saying.

 

 

In a way, every TV show has got a foregone conclusion. Unless it is the very last episode of the very last season, there is a high chance the protagonist will survive whatever's thrown at him... 

Yes.  Which is why one doesn't make the question of his survival (or their reunion) the plot.  It should always be something else - which is not to say that the stakes can't be high.  Consider the BANKER episode.  There would have been no suspense if Watson or Sherlock had been tied in front of the spear.  But because Waton's new girl friend was tied to it, we couldn't be sure what would happen.  They could not die.  She could.  Putting her in jeopardy created suspense.  It was good writing in that respect.

 

This is standard,

Indeed it is "standard".  It is cliched.  It is hackneyed.  It is a bromide.  In other words, it is bad writing.

 

One expects better than that from Sherlock - because, up to now, one has gotten better.  In some cases, one has gotten immensely better.

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

Yes.  Which is why one doesn't make the question of his survival (or their reunion) the plot.  It should always be something else - which is not to say that the stakes can't be high.  Consider the BANKER episode.  There would have been no suspense if Watson or Sherlock had been tied in front of the spear.  But because Waton's new girl friend was tied to it, we couldn't be sure what would happen.  They could not die.  She could.  Putting her in jeopardy created suspense.  It was good writing in that respect.

 

Yay, finally somebody else who defends The Blind Banker! I'll always love the first series best...

 

I sympathize with you if you really liked this show before, waited for two years for it to continue and then got hit by The Empty Hearse, which is really different from what we got to see before. I don't think the quality of the writing has changed (just my opinion!), but the style sure has. The series is very different now. Matter of taste whether it's for the better or the worse - or just different. After the first episode, I definitely thought "worse". Tonight has changed that verdict to "just different" and I really wonder what the next episode will do to me.

 

[Zain]

 

Yes.  Which is why one doesn't make the question of his survival (or their reunion) the plot.  It should always be something else - which is not to say that the stakes can't be high.  Consider the BANKER episode.  There would have been no suspense if Watson or Sherlock had been tied in front of the spear.  But because Waton's new girl friend was tied to it, we couldn't be sure what would happen.  They could not die.  She could.  Putting her in jeopardy created suspense.  It was good writing in that respect.

 

 

 

 

Actually, that is not completely true. Sarah was never truly the factor that rose the level of suspense; character deaths only rise suspense when they are tragic, when the protagonists' flaws lead to it. Sherlock arriving late certainly doesn't qualify, nor does John watching her. The level of suspense was created by making John watch Sarah. It's his suffering that leads to true tension.

This, by the way, is standard, too. Standard doesn't mean bad, it's merely the construct that writers built their works upon. It's not avoiding "clichés" that make things interesting, it's how you play with them.

The Empty Hearse could have been done better, certainly. But as long as I don't put out an alternative version, I do not feel in any way capable to give constructive criticism.

The construction of the episode is not flawed, at least. And personally, I expected more of the content, too. But I am not in any position to claim that my head canon is better than Gatiss' head canon. 

I agree with T.o.b.y. - the quality of writing hasn't taken a dive, it's just the style that has changed.

[BLS_Pro]

 

 

Actually, that is not completely true. Sarah was never truly the factor that rose the level of suspense; character deaths only rise suspense when they are tragic, when the protagonists' flaws lead to it.

This is simply not true.  You confuse "suspense" with "tragedy".  You can have one without the other. 

 

Can one heighten the other?  Certainly.  But it is not a requirement for either.  Suspense occurs when there is danger and you do not know the outcome of an event.  Will she die or will she be saved?  Not knowing the answer is suspense. 

 

[BLS_Pro]

Without saying anything specific about episode 3.2, so as to avoid spoilers for those who've not watched it yet, I will say the characterization of Sherlock and John in THREE supports everything I claimed here, and contradicts all the excuses given for Sherlock and/or John here.  If you want to know more, I posted my explicit thoughts in the THREE thread.

[julia5]

About Sherlock's "reveal video" to Anderson--I'm wondering if it actually is the real explanation, despite being a bit disappointing, because it contained the thing that we missed (or at least I did): the squash ball under the armpit was, literally, how Sherlock faked being dead.  That scene in TRF where Sherlock's sitting on the floor of the lab playing with the squash ball always stood out to me because it reminded me of House (MD) and seemed out of character for Sherlock, but I couldn't figure out why it seemed significant until now.  Thoughts? 

[T.o.b.y]

About Sherlock's "reveal video" to Anderson--I'm wondering if it actually is the real explanation, despite being a bit disappointing, because it contained the thing that we missed (or at least I did): the squash ball under the armpit was, literally, how Sherlock faked being dead.  That scene in TRF where Sherlock's sitting on the floor of the lab playing with the squash ball always stood out to me because it reminded me of House (MD) and seemed out of character for Sherlock, but I couldn't figure out why it seemed significant until now.  Thoughts? 

 

I think it's as "real" an explanation as we will get. They just had Anderson question it to allow us a way out in our minds if we couldn't accept it. The ball didn't surprise me, I sort of guessed this was what it was for. It's not exactly a new trick... I was only confused because Sherlock's helpers pried John's fingers off Sherlock's wrist so fast - why, if he couldn't have felt a pulse there anyway?

 

The more I think about The Solution, the more I like it and the better can I fit it in with my interpretations of scenes in The Reichenbach Fall. (Sherlock can reconcile me to anything).

 

Oh, and Julia5: I really like your picture!

[Ruthyone]

I really liked this episode - fast paced, witty, funny and emotional.  Really good script and superbly acted.

 

My favourite bits ........ Sherlock nicking that guy's dicky bow, Mrs Hudson's reaction on seeing Sherlock, Watson's feisty action's against Sherlock and thought storyline was great. 

[vaffangool]

Thank you so much, T.o.b.y ! 

 

Say, did anyone notice this?

 

 

Liar??

 

Oddly tactful of Sherlock not to mention so straightforward a motive for John's kidnapping--to allow Mary to gain their trust.

 

Maybe it's too obvious--I mean, the bespectacled gentleman's behaviour at episode's end is suggestive of someone reviewing Mary's performance.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Playing catch-up here! I'm answering just the first hundred posts this time, so please forgive me if someone has already made these points in the second hundred (or even in the first hundred -- can't swear that I didn't miss some points).

Oh -- and welcome to all the new members that I haven't yet met in other parts of the forum! Glad to have you here!
 

Fun fact I just read on tumblr - Sherlock's parents ... were played by Mr. Cumberbatch's parents (who are both actors).

 

Oddly enough, when I first happened upon Sherlock in 2010, the only person even remotely connected to the show that I was already at all familiar with was Wanda Ventham. She had been in all the British shows that I liked "back when" -- Doctor Who, The Prisoner, The Avengers ... and I think I'm forgetting some more.
 

... the way he acted ashamed of how "ordinary" they are. His mother, especially, seemed to be very warm and loving toward him, much like Mrs. Hudson, whom Sherlock obviously adores and indulges.

I don't think he's so much ashamed of them as embarrassed by them. Sherlock may be physically a grown man, but emotionally he's still something of a teenager. It's OK for Mrs. Hudson to show her affection for him (she's his landlady), but having his own mother do that makes him feel that she's treating him like a little kid (which, in a sense, she probably is).

The thing that puzzled me most about this scene is that it's actually in the episode. It establishes Sherlock's parents (thus limiting future options), but then goes nowhere with them.  I suspect they may be back.
 

- The line about London, the "great cesspool" is from "A Study in Scarlet"

I love Cumberbatch's delivery in that voice-over -- straight out of a 30's film noir.
  

Sherlock lied to Anderson about how he survived, right? We don't know the right version yet, am I correct?

You and I don't seem to be the only ones unsure about this. Since the scene is shown in the middle of Sherlock and John's bomb scene, clearly something is not meant to be taken literally. So is it a flashback, or a flash-forward? Or are we seeing another of Anderson's daydreams? Or does this take place in an alternate universe?  Or, as you say, maybe Sherlock was just funning Anderson -- hadn't thought of that possibility.

I am intrigued by Sherlock calling him "Phillip." Since he's just addressed Greg Lestrade as "Graham," I wouldn't necessarily trust this to be Anderson's actual name. (Even if the scene takes place in Anderson's head, he could be acknowledging Sherlock's problem with names.) The only clue we'd had before as to Anderson's name is on page 14 of The Casebook, which shows what purports to be an official forensics report filed by "S. Anderson."
 

Remember when Sherlock says to Irene : " Dilated. Your pupils dilated" At the very last second, we see the man who is watching Sherlock, and his eyes, and I'm quite sure that his pupils dilated. Is Moffat finally picking up the gay act...?

As far as I know, a person's pupils tend to dilate when they see anything that they like -- their lover, a cute puppy, chocolate-chip cookies,.... The man is presumably the blackmailer C. A. Magnussen (who has been announced as this season's villain), so if his pupils are dilated, maybe it's because he's really looking forward to using what he's seeing to blackmail someone. 

 

Added after rewatching:  It looks to me like Magnussen's pupils actually contract (get smaller) in that scene -- but that could be simply due to changing light levels in the video that he's watching.
 

I really hope they'll let him stay fit this time and not starve him for the sake of making 100 jokes an episode about his cheekbones.

Dunno whether They are making that decision (I suspect it's more Mr. Cumberbatch's idea), but I agree -- repeatedly gaining and losing weight can't be good for a person's health, and may also lead to weight-control problems in the future.
 

... the bit with Anderson picking out all the what if's (How could you know John would stay in that spot? What if he'd come around? What if someone else had seen you?...) was just another "poking fun at the fans" bit.... All of those "what if's" are ones that we've all seen in speculation on the internet for months, I think it was just their teasing way of pointing out how, it didn't matter how Sherlock  did it, there ... would always be some fans who were like "Wait, that doesn't make sense, because what about this?"

Very good point -- both your idea that Moftiss was poking fun at us yet again, and your point that ain't no way they're gonna please everybody. Maybe their best hope of making everyone fairly happy was to at least acknowledge a lot of the theories in this way.
 

Well, I thought the bit in the carriage of the train was vile. I mean, why was it necessary for the real emotion to be invalidated and laughed at....

That kinda bothered me too, so I've been thinking about it. Of course, we could just say, well, that's Sherlock for you -- doesn't understand emotions. But on the other hand -- he's already apologized to John several times (as best he knew how) with less-than-satisfactory results. Maybe he thought that if John was tricked into revealing that (way deep down) he can't possibly hold a grudge against Sherlock, then things would be OK. And Sherlock doesn't seem to be entirely wrong about that. It does seem to break the ice, at least.
 

... I wasn't best pleased after my one view. Too fast, too loud, to much point-blank comedy, too rushed, too incoherent, too much not-so-subtle emotion and not near enough detective work. It didn't seem like a regular episode to me at all, more like a frantic tying up of loose ends

Uhh, yeah. Probably. And some of the music didn't sound at all like Sherlock music. But it occurs to me that the peculiar-sounding music and the "too fast, too loud" parts occurred when they were showing people's (incorrect) theories of how Sherlock did it. I'm not sure those were the only times (need to watch the episode again), but perhaps they intentionally made those "fantasy" parts feel more like something out of a generic action movie.
 

I realy loved the doctor maboul ( is that the same name in england?) scene!!

Pleased to meet you polux!

Sorry, I'm not familiar with that word, so I'm not sure which scene you're talking about.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

OK, the forum software didn't like me posting with 13 quote boxes at once.  It didn't mind 10, though, and here are the other three:

 

-Sherlock's parents - I like that they're not what you'd expect, but they don't really seem the type to call their children Mycroft and Sherlock.

Her maiden name, maybe? And his mother's maiden name?
  

Was this the first episode they saw for anybody? If so, it must have been terribly confusing! All those references to previous scenes and echoes of old lines plus all this play on fan "issues" plus the Doyle references... Quite a mixture!

Yes, I can just imagine somebody deciding to finally see what their friends have been raving about -- and coming into the middle of things like this! I doubt that the references would be the problem, though, any more than the Conan Doyle references in Series 1 were a problem to me -- they were so well worked into the episodes that I never realized they had any additional significance.
 

I thought the clue that (they thought that) everybody missed was that sound the mobile made - which now was shown as Sherlock texting Mycroft.

Moftiss made that remark (about everyone having missed a vital clue) fairly early on. It's been quoted frequently since, but I don't believe Moftiss ever repeated it or indicated that the fans still hadn't noticed it. So that clue may have been all over the internet well before now.

Whew! That's 100 posts down and another 100 to go.

I just read John's "Empty Hearse" blog entry (thanks, whoever posted that link!), and did a double-take on this:

 

I was out having dinner with my girlfriend when he sauntered back into my world. He was dressed as a waiter. BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE FUNNY. He genuinely thought it would be funny to surprise me. I think he was more surprised when I nutted him.

 

You did what, John?    Thought I must have missed a scene, but then looked up that last verb in a British-American dictionary, which defines "to nut" as "to intentionally hit someone hard with your head."  Whew!

 

Here in the US, we call that "headbutting."  (And the other action is called various things, including "kicking him where he lives.")

 

[sherlockandjohn]

Last night I watched Reichenbach and then Hearse... My mistake. Reichenbach just served to remind me how John felt after Sherlock's apparent death, and now I again feel dissatisfied with the conclusion to Hearse. Will I never find closure? Well, maybe I will. It has only been a few days, after all, but I think closure will come only in the form of my accepting that Sherlock behaved like a jerk in that bomb scene. If only the writers had left out his seemingly heartfelt plea of forgiveness, I would have felt better. Having him say 'please forgive me for all the hurt I've caused you', when he is, in fact, in the middle of pretending with John that their lives are about to end, seems horrible. He has actually caused John a lot of hurt, and although I understand his reasoning for doing what he did, I have trouble with his lack of understanding of John's pain.

 

Other than that one element, I still think the episode is great, and I've watched it 8 times now.

[T.o.b.y]

Last night I watched Reichenbach and then Hearse... My mistake. Reichenbach just served to remind me how John felt after Sherlock's apparent death, and now I again feel dissatisfied with the conclusion to Hearse. Will I never find closure? Well, maybe I will. It has only been a few days, after all, but I think closure will come only in the form of my accepting that Sherlock behaved like a jerk in that bomb scene. If only the writers had left out his seemingly heartfelt plea of forgiveness, I would have felt better. Having him say 'please forgive me for all the hurt I've caused you', when he is, in fact, in the middle of pretending with John that their lives are about to end, seems horrible. He has actually caused John a lot of hurt, and although I understand his reasoning for doing what he did, I have trouble with his lack of understanding of John's pain.

 

Funny, I really like the scene on the train. But then, I just chose to take Sherlock's apology at face value. He was faking the danger, but I think the repentance was mostly real. I also have no idea what else he could have done to get John to come round. I mean, he'd already pulled him out of a fire and said sorry and not even that did the trick. I'd have been quite at my wits' end, too, in Sherlock's situation... You know how one sometimes says, in exasperation, "if this was the end of the world / your last day on earth / I was about to die etc. - would you...?" Well, Sherlock with all his flair for drama just takes that question to a much more literal level. Besides, he could have never admitted he was pulling John's leg. He could have forced John's forgiveness and then pretended to have a brain wave and "defuse" the bomb, thus casting himself as a hero and earn a little applause and admiration into the bargain. But he didn't. He admitted freely that John's first impression had been right and laughed his head off, completely his old, "sociopathic" self. Thus probably leading John to think something like "oh well, he's just incorrigible, he doesn't know any better, that's Sherlock for you. Well, at least we didn't die, that's a relief. I can either let it go and forgive him and be happy he's back or stay mad until the end of my days, thus making both of us unhappy. Not such a hard choice, after all."

 

In the end, it's for John's good to make him be friends again. I'm sure he's a lot happier that way. And at the wedding, he gets his full due of appreciation and praise.