Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[jesskayding]

But I still think John romanticizes Sherlock, a bit. He seems to think Sherlock's somewhat superhuman. Of course, so does Sherlock.......

"I've disappointed you"

 

"Yep. Good deduction"

 

I'm about to butcher the follow up..close enough.

 

"Don't make people into heroes John. Heroes don't exist. even if they did, I wouldn't be one of them"

[Arcadia]

Well, is it really romanticizing? To me, it is more like John does not concede Sherlock the right to be flawed. In S3, that is. And Sherlock is flawed, no denying that. But John takes particular offense in Sherlock's being human, like when Sherlock forgets the room number, or when he did not see Mary's two-headedness. He takes offense in Sherlock's human limitations, which is the fading of knowledge, the filtering, and the disassociation to an issue that would need to be recognized. In a way, I am not sure if John is seeing Sherlock as superhuman at all. Again, strictly talking about s3. To me, it is more like John is denying Sherlock the right to anything that would classify as prototypically human, like human reactions. Maybe emotions, too, to a degree. And motive, as well. In TEH, for example, he is not interested in the motive behind the jump, only in the reason why he was kept in the dark. Maybe in his mind, Sherlock does not need a motive to do something like that. To "collaborate" against him.

I do not think John views Sherlock as something better than Sherlock actually is. To be honest, I think he is not viewing Sherlock at all during s3. He seems completely out of sync with Sherlock's emotional responses, to such a degree that in s3e2, Mary who knows Sherlock not as long as John recognizes much faster that Sherlock is nervous, for example. But that may very much be my subjective perspective and nothing more.

I see what you're getting at, and I think we're saying much the same thing, although I'm not sure I'd charactize John as being "offended" by Sherlock's limitations. Disconcerted, perhaps. But I agree, he does seem to think that Sherlock "should" have all the answers; that he's not entitled to fail. That's what I meant by "romanticization", actually; sometimes John seems focused only on Sherlock's brilliance, not his flaws; on his machine-like perfection, not his frail humanity. And if we take Sherlock at his word, that's the way Sherlock would prefer it.

 

But what the audience knows, and perhaps John doesn't, is that Sherlock is lying. Of course he's not an emotionless automaton; of course he's human. Exceptional, but human. And because in S3 we are seeing John through Sherlock's eyes, and not the other way around any more, we suddenly see how it can hurt when John believes the lie. Just like it did at the end of TRF, when the last time they are together, John final words to Sherlock were "you machine". John, John, John, how could you be so blind?

 

So, yeah, I agree, John does not really "see" Sherlock, and it seems unfair. But I would argue he's always been that way, we've just been interpreting things from his p.o.v. before S3.

 

But in John's defense I will say that I disagree that he wasn't interested in Sherlock's motives; quite the contrary. His statement was "I don't care how you did it, I want to know why." I.e., I want to know the motive for your actions. What possible reason could you have for faking your suicide?

 

And for some reason, and to my eternal frustration, Sherlock doesn't answer him. Arghhghghg!!!! Moftissssss!!!!

 

There is light at the end of the tunnel, though; in HLV, John wonders who Sherlock -- cold, detached, self-centered Sherlock -- would bother to protect. And suddenly he realizes.

[jesskayding]

Romantically put Arcadia. "Good Stuff"-the cabby.

 

 

 

Just one thing... Sherlock did answer him.

 

1. Because Moriarty had to be stopped

 

2. Because he was afraid John would let the cat out of the bag. ( when answering why he didn't let John in on the rouse.)

 

 

Unless we are both talking about two completely different scenes.

[Arcadia]

BTW, by "superhuman" I mean more than human, better than human; not a better human. Sherlock, I think, wants to be superior to humans; they're flawed, they're ordinary, he wants to surpass that. Or wanted to. I suspect what we're seeing is his growth into realizing that being a better human is, in fact, the most extraordinary thing someone can be.

[Arcadia]

Romantically put Arcadia. "Good Stuff"-the cabby.

 

 

 

Just one thing... Sherlock did answer him.

 

1. Because Moriarty had to be stopped

 

2. Because he was afraid John would let the cat out of the bag. ( when answering why he didn't let John in on the rouse.)

 

 

Unless we are both talking about two completely different scenes.

Yes, I am quite the romantic, aren't I? And proud of it!

 

No, we're thinking of the same scene. But Sherlock didn't give the true answer, the one that mattered. He didn't say "I did it to save you, John. You and Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson. Because you all would have died if I didn't." He didn't let John know that he, Sherlock Bloody Holmes, was capable of putting others before himself. And I think John still has trouble believing that he can. Because, really, what evidence does he have?

 

That's why I'm so curious to know what John thinks after HLV. Does he realize, finally, that Sherlock can be selfless? Or does he just think that Sherlock has once again failed to be perfect?

 

Gawd, I love this show.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

That's why I'm so curious to know what John thinks after HLV. Does he realize, finally, that Sherlock can be selfless? Or does he just think that Sherlock has once again failed to be perfect?

 

  By the look on John's face at the aftermath of Appledore, I don't think he can now refuse to believe to what lengths Sherlock can and will go to protect those he loves. Sherlock does nothing by halves. It's all or nothing.

[T.o.b.y]

 

That's why I'm so curious to know what John thinks after HLV. Does he realize, finally, that Sherlock can be selfless? Or does he just think that Sherlock has once again failed to be perfect?

 

Maybe both. I'm not entirely sure myself what happened there. I thought after The Reichenbach Fall that now it had happened, Sherlock finally fulfilled Lestrade's prediction and became a good man who heroically sacrificed his life at home for his friends, and then the next episode came along with the explanation and showed all that in a completely different and decidedly more murky light.

 

 

[Arcadia]

 

That's why I'm so curious to know what John thinks after HLV. Does he realize, finally, that Sherlock can be selfless? Or does he just think that Sherlock has once again failed to be perfect?

 

Maybe both. I'm not entirely sure myself what happened there. I thought after The Reichenbach Fall that now it had happened, Sherlock finally fulfilled Lestrade's prediction and became a good man who heroically sacrificed his life at home for his friends, and then the next episode came along with the explanation and showed all that in a completely different and decidedly more murky light.

 

Yeah, that was disappointing. Sherlock did a beautiful thing and then they sort of muddied it up, didn't they? (The tears were fake? Nooooooooo!!!!!!!) Which is why I've decided to be rather John-like and become oblivious to the bits that I don't want.

[Arcadia]

 

 

That's why I'm so curious to know what John thinks after HLV. Does he realize, finally, that Sherlock can be selfless? Or does he just think that Sherlock has once again failed to be perfect?

 

By the look on John's face at the aftermath of Appledore, I don't think he can now refuse to believe to what lengths Sherlock can and will go to protect those he loves. Sherlock does nothing by halves. It's all or nothing.

 

If, in fact, John interprets that it was all for him, and doesn't just decide that Sherlock became overwhelmed by his hatred of CAM. Personally, I think you're right ("Tell Mary she's safe now." How could John miss THAT?), but I've grown wary of Moftiss, and they've certainly left the other door open. The scoundrels.

[jesskayding]

I really don't believe Sherlock shot CAM because of hatred. As a matter of fact Benedict himself says the reason he did it was because he saw no other way out. Magnussen had indeed outsmarted him. There was nothing else to but kill him or watch the lives of those he cared about most be destroyed.

[Arcadia]

Where did you see/hear that, Jesskay? Do you still have the link? I seem to have missed that one. I'm always curious to know what actors think their character's motivations are.

 

Oh, I think a case can be made that hatred was a factor, at least. The camera kept switching to Sherlock looking at CAM, his expression getting darker each time. Very similar to the scene in ASiB where he goes to rescue Mrs. Hudson. Of course, his expression could be interpreted as growing resolve, not growing hatred. Or both, even. Either way, CAM was toast.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Or growing disgust.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I can certainly understand and agree with the disgust.....CAM was certainly that.....disgusting. 

[jesskayding]

Arcadia I can't find the interview. I feel like he was part of a sherlock panel that includes Martin Freeman. here's an article that quotes him though.

 

 

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-02-07/benedict-cumberbatch-sherlock-shouldnt-be-someone-you-want-to-cosy-up-with

 

 

I don't know if anyone would have more insight into a character, than the actor himself. Except for the writer of course.

[Slithytove]

Sherlock's loathing of CAM is never really explained but it certainly seems to be a factor in his murder, judging by the expression on Sherlock's face. He has told John that CAM repels him more than the serial killers he has dealt with, and he offers Mycroft an explanation of his hatred on the grounds that CAM uses people's differences against them, but it still isn't clear why CAM tops the league table of villains. Is he, for instance, more repellent than Jim Moriarty who terrorises and then blows up a blind old lady and her neighbours, or kidnaps and poisons two young children?

 

To me, it appears that Sherlock is gripped by a very powerful emotion when he shoots CAM, even though he is ostensibly committing the crime to save Mary. I wonder if we will ever know if there was a personal reason why Sherlock hated CAM so much. Judging by the number of issues throughout the series remaining unresolved, I very much doubt it.

 

Of course, it would be typical of Moftiss to tell us in the next episode that the killing of CAM had been planned by Sherlock & Mycroft all along.....

[Zain]

BTW, by "superhuman" I mean more than human, better than human; not a better human. Sherlock, I think, wants to be superior to humans; they're flawed, they're ordinary, he wants to surpass that. Or wanted to. I suspect what we're seeing is his growth into realizing that being a better human is, in fact, the most extraordinary thing someone can be.

 

I see That's where I misunderstood you. You see, superhuman means to me, too, that it is "better than human." But to me, the "machine perfection" is less than human, because it lacks emotion, therefore it is lacking. That's why I was confused. I thought you were arguing that John was viewing Sherlock as something better (in a praising way), while I saw his "Sherlock should function" attitude more like an insult to Sherlock's "humanness."

 

 

 

 

Of course, it would be typical of Moftiss to tell us in the next episode that the killing of CAM had been planned by Sherlock & Mycroft all along..... 

 

If it was, I would be anything but impressed. That'd make it planned and thus intentional.

I can see Mycroft's smug face behind the Christmas incident itself (laptop, punch, Magnussen's testimony, GPS tracker), but not behind Magnussen's death. Too messy, requires too much cleaning up and too much is left to chance. I can see how he was willing to go to greater risks in TRF when it was about other people's lives, and people he probably did not care (much?) about. But in this case, it is not only his brother but also his own integrity and his position in the political hierarchy that was on the line.

[Arcadia]

Arcadia I can't find the interview. I feel like he was part of a sherlock panel that includes Martin Freeman. here's an article that quotes him though.

 

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-02-07/benedict-cumberbatch-sherlock-shouldnt-be-someone-you-want-to-cosy-up-with

 

I don't know if anyone would have more insight into a character, than the actor himself. Except for the writer of course.

Thanks for looking, and for the link you did find. Hadn't seen that one before, very interesting. That implies rather more collaboration between actors and writers than I might have expected. I don't know why I'm so curious about that, but I am.

[Arcadia]

Of course, it would be typical of Moftiss to tell us in the next episode that the killing of CAM had been planned by Sherlock & Mycroft all along.....

Yes it would and oh gawd I hope not ....

[Arcadia]

 

BTW, by "superhuman" I mean more than human, better than human; not a better human. Sherlock, I think, wants to be superior to humans; they're flawed, they're ordinary, he wants to surpass that. Or wanted to. I suspect what we're seeing is his growth into realizing that being a better human is, in fact, the most extraordinary thing someone can be.

 

I see That's where I misunderstood you. You see, superhuman means to me, too, that it is "better than human." But to me, the "machine perfection" is less than human, because it lacks emotion, therefore it is lacking. That's why I was confused. I thought you were arguing that John was viewing Sherlock as something better (in a praising way), while I saw his "Sherlock should function" attitude more like an insult to Sherlock's "humanness."

 

Well, I think I was sort of arguing that John was viewing Sherlock as something -- not better, exactly, but something more perfect than what he actually is. A beautiful machine that runs flawlessly, just like Sherlock would like to be. Reliable, infallible. But along the way the writers have cleverly inverted the concept, so that being considered infallible -- machine like -- is no longer the desireable goal Sherlock once might have thought it was. And John hasn't quite caught up with that yet?

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

Well, I think I was sort of arguing that John was viewing Sherlock as something -- not better, exactly, but something more perfect than what he actually is. A beautiful machine that runs flawlessly, just like Sherlock would like to be.

 

That is my impression as well. John just really "believes in Sherlock Holmes".

 

I'm not sure in what way the downside of this is being shown. Sure, Sherlock gets a lot less praise and admiration than formerly, and instead a lot more "you're Sherlock Holmes, why haven't you solved it yet?" kind of an attitude.

 

By the way, isn't it a bit odd that John should still see Sherlock that way after being with Mary for a while? Because Mary clearly has a very different image of the great detective, and one would expect the married couple to compare notes on him at least once in a while, wouldn't one? And that should have kind of made John reconsider some things.

 

Amateur psychology alert, but my personal theory for why John clings so persistently to the "sociopath" theory after Sherlock doesn't even seem to be fooling himself any more with it, is that it's probably the only way for John to put The Fall and all that behind him. If Sherlock is a cold reasoning-machine who "doesn't feel things that way", then he couldn't be expected to understand what it would do to a best friend to see him apparently kill himself in front of his very eyes. John can tell himself that Sherlock just doesn't know any better. It's like you don't accuse your cat of murder when she catches a mouse.

 

[Arcadia]

What? I beg your pardon, I quite firmly admonish my cat when she catches a mouse. There will be no mouse murdering in this domicile!

 

I think the "downside" is pretty much what you said. Sherlock seems a little underappreciated by John in S3.

[Zain]

 

 

 

Of course, it is always debatable <snip> if John could have shot to injure instead of to kill. <snip> If a police officer had been in his place, that officer would have shot, too, most likely. Whether to kill or not, that, however, is debatable.

Do real-life soldiers or police intentionally shoot to merely disable a person? I believe I've heard that they don't, simply because it's hard enough to just hit the person you're intending to hit (who is often a moving target). If you aim at a knee, for example, you're likely to miss altogether. So my impression is that they simply don't shoot unless they feel justified in probably killing the person. This may be different in the other countries, of course, or I may be misremembering.

 

 

 

It has been a long time, and sorry for going completely off-track, but I finally have a definite answer for you, Carol. Before, I was only recollecting what I knew and once had heard. But right now, there actually is a halfway big case going on which is just about this: A police officer shot a fleeing criminal (I think it was drugs and possibly gun possession) and hit him in the head. Because he did not shoot at the legs, or let's say, extremities, he is accused of murder by negligence and faces severe charges. So, yes, they do shoot to merely disable a person. If you shoot, you have to aim at extremities. Otherwise it is a crime.

 

 

Back to the original discussion;

But comparing someone to a machine is not really praise, is it? A machine is not really perfect, is it merely... functional. Hollow. Lacking. It exists to be used for its one function, and afterwards it is put away. Not really needed but for that one function. Something that can be replaced. I do not really get how this is John idealizing Sherlock. To me, this is a very cruel comparison... Lacking any sort of respect for his character and attitude. It compresses his entire being into... one function. Or action. As if nothing else about him was noteworthy.

[Arcadia]

But comparing someone to a machine is not really praise, is it? A machine is not really perfect, is it merely... functional. Hollow. Lacking. It exists to be used for its one function, and afterwards it is put away. Not really needed but for that one function. Something that can be replaced. I do not really get how this is John idealizing Sherlock. To me, this is a very cruel comparison... Lacking any sort of respect for his character and attitude. It compresses his entire being into... one function. Or action. As if nothing else about him was noteworthy.

Well, that's why I mentioned I thought Sherlock -- at the beginning, at least -- found it praiseworthy to be a cold, calculating, infallible machine. Never distracted, always exact. Of course he was fooling himself; but what I'm saying is he fooled John too. When John assumes Sherlock has all the answers, I think he believes he's paying his friend the highest compliment: "I believe in you and all that you say you are." But you and I and the rest of us see that it's not really a compliment anymore, because what Sherlock says he is -- a brilliant but emotionless sociopath -- is not such a praiseworthy thing to be. And I think John would see that too, if he thought about it, but he just seems to be going along accepting Sherlock at face value. Whether this is because he's still angry at Sherlock, or because he's now focused on Mary instead, or (my favorite, because it's so ironic) he just thinks he's being a good, supportive friend, I don't know. Nor do I think it particularly matters. To me the point of all this is that John Watson -- the kind one, the caring one, the human one -- sometimes misses the important things too. But then I'm always a sucker for irony.

 

That's my take anyway, but now I'm seriously doubting the writers put nearly as much thought into it as we just did!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I'm not sure Sherlock really believed everything he says about himself either.  It was just a way to cope with all the stuff that Mycroft threw at him as a kid. Mycroft thought he was slow...an idiot. Who knows what else Mycroft called him....but by owning it....Mycroft couldn't hurt him with it any more.  Like getto speak.  It was a way that he could get on with his life and if people wanted to think he was cold and heartless...then so what. But Mrs. Hudson, Lestrade, Molly and John....they learned not to let him get away with it. They learned to "see" what was really there.

 

Let him be snarky to the rest of the world.....with these people he could let himself lose.....if only a little bit.....but the more they stuck by him, the easier it would become for him to trust and just be himself...no matter what that entailed.

[Arcadia]

Molly and Lestrade, yup! Mrs. H, her I'm not so sure about!  "she sees what she wants to see and disregards the rest..."