Would Sherlock really..?

[Evil Rapid Rob]

After feeling let down by Sherlock shooting Charles instead of outwitting him, I let my feeling be known on facebook. Some say there was no alternative, that Sherlock was backed into a corner and there was no other way. I refuse to believe it was an impossible situation, for Sherlock as he has a natural talent for getting out of situations that appear impossible. To prove this I rewrote the scene I was unhappy with and posted it as well. It then transpired that it maybe because they are trying to humanize him, I make my feelings clear on this too. Here is both my original post, my alternative ending and feelings on humanizing Sherlock. look forward to reading your reply's. 

 

(Post 1)

No way would Sherlock Holmes execute someone! Especially not because they outwitted him and backed him into a corner. Poor script writing resulting in Sherlock crossing a bridge he never would have done traditionally. He's a highly functioning sociopath not an assassin! Now that doors been opened surely he can just blow away his rivals every time instead of outwitting them, its gonna make for some very short future episode's. A sad day in Sherlock history:(

 

(Post 2)

After my utter dismay at last night's Sherlock episode I decided to rewrite one of the scenes. Starting from the point where Watson's being flicked in the face by the villain (Charles Augustus Magnussen). Throughout the episode Charles was using personal information about people to find there "pressure point's" and then manipulating them, this was illustrated with scrolling scripts behind his eyes. I think Sherlock would have used this same technique to defeat him. The problem being Sherlock was struggling to read him due to his calm impregnable exterior giving so little away. Charles was highly intelligent and used the same mind palace technique as Sherlock to recall information. Therefore Sherlock would have an in-depth knowledge of how it works and It's flaws. This is illustrated earlier in the episode on a recap at the wedding, when he forgets the hotel room number. Watson questions his memory mind palace and Sherlock replies "something's have to go". This proves the mind palace concept is not infallible, It's simply impossible for even highly functioning individuals to use all of there brain capacity. Reflect this reasoning now on to Charles. He has hundreds of life's filed in his memory, but as we see in the episode only the ability to access one at a time. His pressure point is his cool smugness at his own ability, and his week point is only being able to process One file from his vault at a time. Sherlock can then exploit this making it a battle if wit rather than a pointless execution. 

That's the premise. Now cut to the scene where Watson's getting his face flicked and both him and Sherlock appear powerless and defeated. At this point Sherlock scans Charles up and down, illustrated in the same scrolling formula Charles uses and comes up with pressure point smugness!  Sherlock then starts playing with Charles, getting him to show off (the game is on). Charles is enjoying the opportunity after all what's he got to lose in his mind he's won already. Sherlock starts quizzing him on his greatest achievements of manipulations and Charles revels in his bragging. Sherlock indulges him further continuing quiz him and appearing to be impressed. He then starts cross linking the information; people, events and consequences of Charles influence over events. He continues to quiz him in detail about these multiple scenarios. Charles is trying to access more than one memory file in his mind palace at once. This is illustrated by a brief flash of the information behind his eyes appearing in more than one column, he starts to show slight signs of being under pressure. Sherlock asks more and more questions, constantly cross linking  the information, he manages to use his observational skills to analyse Charles now that he's showing weakness. Sherlock's now holding court, there is a shift of power as Charles starts losing his composure as Sherlock starts integrating questions about his own past (Sherlock is looking for ways to touch a nerve). Charles starts seeing in his minds eye his lists starting to become jumbled and merging with a pulsating feeling in his temples. He now showing signs of irritation, becoming angry with Sherlock and starts trying to get him to shut up. Instead Sherlock cranks it up a notch pushing him further and overloading him more and more. 

Charles is still facing Watson his mind flashes 'pressure point Watson'. He grabs Watson's gun points it back at him and yells at Sherlock to stop. At this point the helicopter and snipers enter adding to his addled pulsating confusion. Sherlock keeps at it, even tho he's clearly putting Watson at risk, he talks about coping strategies like Mind Palace. About how Charles must have used it to help overcome his mental illness a way of organizing and memorizing to avoid becoming overloaded by an over active mind. How people with low latent inhibition if combined with a high level IQ can become genius, but conversely with low IQ suffer from mental illness. Sherlock: "you were in a mental institution were you not? what does that say about your IQ? yes you mastered a good coping strategy with mind palace, clearly isn't working now tho is it? you learnt how to control peoples lives with your memory, but don't fool yourself your no genius, your just a lunatic with a flawed coping strategy that's now broken, your finished!" 

We see the words in Charles minds eye jumble and pulsate to the point of literally seeing red and then he pulls the trigger..... Charles is hit by sniper fire he's wounded and knocked of balance a fraction of a second before the bullet leaves his gun and he misses Watson. Watson turns on Sherlock for nearly getting him killed. Sherlock calmly explains a theory that a good sniper instinctively knows the point a trigger will be pulled and they can remove the target marginally before it will happen. Watson's unimpressed and tells Sherlock there's no way he could of known the outcome for certain. Sherlock reply's:"nothings ever a certainty but every theory needs testing." Watson:" i'd prefer if it wasn't tested on me." Sherlock:"oh come now, we discussed how your attracted to dangerous situations." Watson:"Oh so that's a given now is it? You've always got a bloody answer, well answer me this; how did you know you could break Charles in the first place?" Sherlock:"Moriarty!" Watson:"What? How? He's dead" Sherlock: "Obviously, you've got to admit tho he was a a higher class of villain. Anyway I remembered him breaking the glass safe housing the crown jewels. This made me realise my problem was one of physics. The stronger something becomes the more brittle it can become and therefore more fragile, then it's simply a case of applying the correct amount of pressure at the right point. This was true of Charles." Watson:" You sound as if your actually missing Moriarty!" Sherlock:"Don't be so ridiculous Watson, although you have to admit the worlds a bit duller without him." Watson:"your unbelievable! ok, well what about the eye flicking, couldn't you have stopped that sooner?" Sherlock:"of course, but it amused me, your face (Sherlock does a mocking facial expression of Watson then laughs') Watson still looks suitably unimpressed.

 

This version of events gives continuity to Sherlock's character, he is still a sociopath who puts Watson in unnecessary danger. Partly to indulge his own sociopathic tendency, observing with intrigue as Watson is being mocked by Charles. This would feed his sociological interests, and is far more in character than some grand self sacrificing gesture forcing him to kill a man in cold blood because of his a affection towards Watson. Sherlock's full of grand gestures, but he only uses them for showing off. All of this would only take a couple of minutes on screen and the rest could then stay pretty much the same. Mycroft would still be annoyed at losing an asset. Sherlock would therefore still undergo his four minute exile. Charles ends up a gibbering wreck in an asylum, after Sherlock breaking his mind palace. The mind palace Charles thought to be impregnable and flawless and was the one thing that kept him sane. This way they get keep a convincing bad guy they could always resurrect for future episodes. And fundamentally you get to keep the continuity of Sherlock and Watson's characters.

 

It's not that i'm a Sherlock geek I just have an over active imagination:)

 

(Post 3)

He's a sociopath, its not a grumpy phase he's being going through for the last 120 year's of compelling entertainment, and I like him that way. He's supposed to be slightly detestable and frustrating, that's his character. Why try and make him a fluffy lovable slightly eccentric doctor who stylized character for any other reason than being a lazy un-imaginative script writer. The same guy that writes doctor who is clearly merging the two main characters, but we don't need two doctor who series. And I don't want to see Sherlock and Watson's relationship turn into something from beauty and the beast. STOP Humanizing your ruining it!

Edited January 14, 2014 by Undead Medic
Please keep plot revelations out of topic titles!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Welcome to the forum, Rob! 

 

You make an interesting point, and have presented a carefully-thought-out alternative.

 

That scene in the episode reminds me very much of a scene in the Magnum: PI episode "Did You See the Sun Rise?"  The Magnum scene was presented as a one-time emergency situation, and did not lead to any major change in the character who pulled the trigger.  Perhaps Sherlock saw his own situation here as an emergency -- after all, in your re-write, John comes very close to being killed with his own pistol!

 

[Evil Rapid Rob]

Thanks Carol

Glad you found it interesting it's the first thing I ever wrote. Just a bit of fun really, always full of ideas but never get round to putting them down, partly down to being severely dyslexic. Honestly iv'e been enjoying the whole series, even the wedding! I just thought Sherlock shooting Charles was a bit clunky and thought, there must be some other way.

Cheers, Rob

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, for a first try that was really something!  I especially liked the mind-palace duel.  Looking forward to more of your comments and ideas.

 

By the way, the reason this thread didn't show up on the forum immediately is that each new member's first 10 posts must be approved by a staff member before they become visible.  Just seven more posts, and you won't need to wait!

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Was there something in HLV about Magnussen being mentally ill?

 

And yes, I am a bit disappointed that Sherlock became a shooter. I can't think of any story in canon where he ever directly caused the death of anyone, except for Moriarty at Reichenbach.  But as I watched that scene and mulled it over, in canon, "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton". Holmes and Watson break into the blackmailer's house to retrieve some letters for a woman being victimized by Charles Augustus. Sherlock gets the safe open but then he and Watson have to hide as Charles Augustus and a woman enter the room. The woman shoots Charles and leaves. Holmes empties the safe of all of Charles's files and letters, and burns everything.

 

 In this modern version, since Magnussen's vault is all in his head, Sherlock's shooting him is equivalent to burning the contents of that vault. Not pretty but still close to canon.

 

 I don't think that Mofftiss will completely humanize Sherlock Holmes. They know the original to well. And even in canon Watson gives us cracks in that seemingly cold, heartless machine. It's not ruining him....just making him better known to us and more importantly, to a whole new generation of potential Holmesians/Sherlockians and getting them into the canon.

[SherlockBatman]

Yeah, I agree, I think the thing was, if CAM didn't die, he would always have the ability to get out of any situation; imprisonment, incarceration etc by using the knowledge in his mind palace and also be able to store any new information he'd need in future situations to bribe any new people or remember codes, floor plans etc to aid his escape, so destroying the mind palace was the only way. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

... just as Mycroft realized that imprisoning Sherlock would be counter-productive at best.

 

But was everything really all in Magnussen's head?  If I were Mycroft, I'd do a very thorough search of that house (including a probe underneath by way of sonar or whatever's applicable) and also Magnussen's office building.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I had to kind of rethink the part where I said that Holmes never directly caused a death, because he did. At Reichenbach Falls, Professor James Moriarty. Even it was at least self defense. This was Sherlock's one and only act of all out violence, so it seems Mofftiss switched it out a bit. In TRF, Moriarty commits suicide so Sherlock shooting Magnussen becomes his one act of lethal violence.

[T.o.b.y]

I had to kind of rethink the part where I said that Holmes never directly caused a death, because he did. At Reichenbach Falls, Professor James Moriarty. Even it was at least self defense. This was Sherlock's one and only act of all out violence, so it seems Mofftiss switched it out a bit. In TRF, Moriarty commits suicide so Sherlock shooting Magnussen becomes his one act of lethal violence.

 

You are right that the only person he actively killed was Moriarty, but he made it quite clear several times that he would stop at nothing to protect or revenge a loved one. For example, in "The Devil's Foot", he let a murderer go free because he killed the man who caused the death of a woman he loved. Holmes remarks that he would probably have done the same thing. In "The Three Garridebs", he tells the American that if he had killed Watson, Holmes would not have let him out of the room alive. In "Charles Augustus Milverton", Watson is about to stop the woman who shoots the villain, but Holmes holds him back. Clearly, he thinks killing people can sometimes be justified (or if it can't, he'd do it anyway).

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

For example, in "The Devil's Foot", he let a murderer go free because he killed the man who caused the death of a woman he loved. Holmes remarks that he would probably have done the same thing. In "The Three Garridebs", he tells the American that if he had killed Watson, Holmes would not have let him out of the room alive. In "Charles Augustus Milverton", Watson is about to stop the woman who shoots the villain, but Holmes holds him back. Clearly, he thinks killing people can sometimes be justified (or if it can't, he'd do it anyway).

 

 

  Yes! Exactly! But he only actually used deadly force once. And in the series, I will give anything that it is this one time. Magnussen, not Moriarty.

[T.o.b.y]

 Yes! Exactly! But he only actually used deadly force once. And in the series, I will give anything that it is this one time. Magnussen, not Moriarty.

 

Yes, I certainly hope it's the one and only time, too. Not because I think Sherlock "shouldn't" kill people (it all depends on what people and why), but because the killing of Magnussen is such a great and epic moment and I don't want it spoiled by repetition. (Which is the main reason I do not want Mary to die. I do not wish a repeat of The Reichenbach Fall ending. I do not want great moments of the series devalued. Of course I like her in her own right, too, but that is unfortunately the main reason).

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Yes, I certainly hope it's the one and only time, too. Not because I think Sherlock "shouldn't" kill people (it all depends on what people and why), but because the killing of Magnussen is such a great and epic moment and I don't want it spoiled by repetition

 

  Agreed, and as one poster pointed out, Sherlock is a thinking man, not one who normally would resort to violence. Only in the most dire of circumstances as Magnussen was.

[T.o.b.y]

 Agreed, and as one poster pointed out, Sherlock is a thinking man, not one who normally would resort to violence. Only in the most dire of circumstances as Magnussen was.

 

Amen. Magnussen really was every bit as loathsome as the original character he was based on. Perfectly horrible, disgusting and vile. Thank god people like that do not really exist. But if they did, I would rethink my attitude towards homicide myself. Ugh. The scene where he bullies John. That was so painful. (But, I have to grudgingly admit, perfectly done, utterly believable and quite subtle. It was excellently written and acted out and it was sorely needed to set the stage for Sherlock's dramatic kill.)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

At first I didn't like the character Magnussen at all. As you said, Perfectly horrible and disgusting. But then it struck me, the perfect villain and believable and that's why I hated him so. So yes, he worked. All to well.

[Janie]

I mostly enjoy villains but Magnussen was so horrible, disgusting and creepy that I had a problem to watch scenes with him. When he was flicking John's face I wanted to punch him. So I was really happy when Sherlock finally killed him. 

[Mr. Holmes]

Yeah, I agree, I think the thing was, if CAM didn't die, he would always have the ability to get out of any situation; imprisonment, incarceration etc by using the knowledge in his mind palace and also be able to store any new information he'd need in future situations to bribe any new people or remember codes, floor plans etc to aid his escape, so destroying the mind palace was the only way. 

Exactly. 

 

And it probably helps that CAM was so damn despicable.  The flicking was enough reason to shoot him.  

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

What made that whole scenario so sad is the tears in Sherlock's eyes after the event. It wasn't what he had wanted to do and Mycroft seeing him as a child. It really is a heartbreaking moment.

[wildwoodflower]

 

Yeah, I agree, I think the thing was, if CAM didn't die, he would always have the ability to get out of any situation; imprisonment, incarceration etc by using the knowledge in his mind palace and also be able to store any new information he'd need in future situations to bribe any new people or remember codes, floor plans etc to aid his escape, so destroying the mind palace was the only way. 

Exactly. 

 

And it probably helps that CAM was so damn despicable.  The flicking was enough reason to shoot him.  

 

After seeing it again Sunday night I heard something I hadn't heard the first time. When Magnussen is telling John he should try to keep his eye open so he can flick that, he then says that Janine only managed it once and comments on what a funny noise she made. And then Sherlock gets this look on his face like he had made the decision right then and he only had to be very very clear all the information was in Magnussen's head and nowhere else. It was the casual cruelty to Janine (and by extention, all the other Janines) that seemed to seal Magnussen's fate in that moment. .

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

And then Sherlock gets this look on his face like he had made the decision right then and he only had to be very very clear all the information was in Magnussen's head and nowhere else. It was the casual cruelty to Janine (and by extention, all the other Janines) that seemed to seal Magnussen's fate in that moment. .

 

   Exactly

[sfmpco]

Well, a couple of things occurred to me today about this shooting:

 

1.  CAM replayed in his mind palace the bit of John being pulled out of the fire so that means that someone filmed it for him...  since he replays on the screen when Sherlock and John confront him at Appledor.

 

2.  CAM focuses heavily on hearing Mary's voice calling "John!  John!" during that replay at the end of TEH.  Very heavy focus on Mary.  So he is already onto Mary at this point, probably because Mary has befriended Janine, and CAM knows every pressure point and secret on all his people.  And why would CAM send a telegram to Mary at the wedding unless he had had some dealings with her before so that she would be visibly unnerved with Sherlock reads it.  When she goes to kill CAM, he keeps muttering about how honorable John is and about her sudden obsession with honesty, so it just makes me think that they's had dealings before.

 

3.  Sherlock did ask John to bring a gun to his parents' house for Christmas dinner.  I don't believe he intended to use it except if anything got rough. (which begs the question of whether or not Sherlock owns a gun or just uses John's - did he shoot the wall with John's gun???)  He really thought he was going to get some hard copy files on Mary in exchange for the computer stuff, and thereby be able to frame CAM for being in possession of top secret information.  That's what you get for coming up with a half-baked idea while you're high on morphine.  

 

4.  Lord Smallwood committed suicide on or just before Christmas day (it's headline news in the paper Sherlock reads while at his parents' house). This means that those letters were leaked by CAM at some point between the time that Sherlock was shot and Christmas Day and that the humiliation and possible lawsuits and sex offender allegations drove him to suicide. 

 

5.  Yes, cruelty to Janine - likely after she sold those false stories to the gutter press plus the fact that CAM would have realized she let Sherlock and John into the offices.  He owned her totally, which is extra why he was "spitting," as she said.

 

6.  I think the shooting of CAM was not premeditated but an act of last minute desperation.  It also broke the chain of ownership for anyone and everyone that CAM dominated through his bullying.  Although there would be severe consequences for the shooting, Sherlock freed a lot of people.  One person's murderer, a lot of people's hero.  Depends on your point of view, but both are correct.

 

7.  Often wonder why Lady Smallwood doesn't show mercy towards Sherlock.  He freed her as well, and she would have hated CAM.  Well, she did hate him, but after the suicide of her husband, she would have taken hate to a new level.  But she seems awfully calm in the final meeting, and that meeting can't be too long after the shooting.  Seems like she should have been grieving and far more conflicted.  I do think she is leaning towards mercy because she finds the "punishment"  to be "hardly merciful."

 

8.  It would have been an interesting twist if the gun John brought was Mary's gun.  Alas, I don't think so.

 

Just some thoughts.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Often wonder why Lady Smallwood doesn't show mercy towards Sherlock.  He freed her as well, and she would have hated CAM.  Well, she did hate him, but after the suicide of her husband, she would have taken hate to a new level.  But she seems awfully calm in the final meeting, and that meeting can't be too long after the shooting.  Seems like she should have been grieving and far more conflicted. 

 

   In my rather humble opinion....and it is just my opinion.....I do think Lady Smallwood did show mercy. I think it was she who was the colleague Mycroft mentioned. The one who said something like: "This country sometimes needs a blunt instrument. Equally, it sometimes needs a dagger - a scalpel wielded with precision and without remorse." 

 

  Then Mycroft looks to his left and it shows Lady Smallwood...and some men...then he recites the line. "There will always come a time when we need Sherlock Holmes."

 

  I think she was sticking up for Sherlock and was ready to show clemency. As you said, sfmpco, Sherlock freed her as much as Mary and even Janine. And it was Lady Smallwood that embroiled Sherlock into that whole mess in the first place. I think she did want to find a way to protect him.

[T.o.b.y]

  I think she was sticking up for Sherlock and was ready to show clemency. As you said, sfmpco, Sherlock freed her as much as Mary and even Janine. And it was Lady Smallwood that embroiled Sherlock into that whole mess in the first place. I think she did want to find a way to protect him.

 

 

Lets hope so. I like her. She's very dignified and I admire that. Plus it's nice to see a female character who is over thirty and adds something to the plot other than being anybody's love interest.

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I liked her too. She was the only one who showed the backbone to go after CAM....the results were tragic and regrettable but....sadly.....it is often that way in real life as well. The best of intentions can go badly awry.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... the question of whether or not Sherlock owns a gun or just uses John's - did he shoot the wall with John's gun???

I suspect he did use John's gun on the happy face -- when John arrives, he "confiscates" it and Sherlock raises no objection.  We know that John has a gun, and we've never seen / heard anything to the effect that Sherlock does.  So, balance of probability....

 

6.  I think the shooting of CAM was not premeditated but an act of last minute desperation.  It also broke the chain of ownership for anyone and everyone that CAM dominated through his bullying.  Although there would be severe consequences for the shooting, Sherlock freed a lot of people.  One person's murderer, a lot of people's hero.

Sherlock may have foreseen the possibility it would come to that (just as his "Reichenbach" plans apparently allowed for the possibility that Moriarty would not be around to witness his fall).  I believe he was hoping to be proven wrong -- he certainly pressed Magnussen for multiple confirmations that the "vaults" were all in his head -- but was also prepared to take that difficult route if absolutely necessary.

 

[Arcadia]

After feeling let down by Sherlock shooting Charles instead of outwitting him, I let my feeling be known on facebook. Some say there was no alternative, that Sherlock was backed into a corner and there was no other way. I refuse to believe it was an impossible situation, for Sherlock as he has a natural talent for getting out of situations that appear impossible.

YES!!!! Thank you! I don't know how I missed this thread before but I'm glad I found it. It bugged me soooo much that they didn't have Sherlock think his way out of the situation. What's the point of being Sherlock Holmes if you're going to resort to a John McClane solution?

 

I will say, however, that upon reflection I also see this may not be "poor scripting" but a deliberate attempt to explore what can happen to a man like Sherlock when he lets his emotions -- and drugs (?) -- take precedence over his rationality. Okay, so that, I don't mind. The only part I still mind is the implication that we are supposed to be "glad" that Sherlock killed someone. (What a brutal world that would be.) Those who are glad .... don't mind me, I'm not judging you for it, I know it's fiction; it just doesn't sit well with me.

 

I don't think that Mofftiss will completely humanize Sherlock Holmes. They know the original to well. And even in canon Watson gives us cracks in that seemingly cold, heartless machine. It's not ruining him....just making him better known to us and more importantly, to a whole new generation of potential Holmesians/Sherlockians and getting them into the canon.

Maybe it's because I haven't read all the stories yet, but so far I don't understand where the "canon" that Holmes is a cold, heartless machine comes from. I just haven't seen it in the stories I've read so far. Logical, rational, focused; yes. But those are not synonyms for cold and heartless. I don't get it....

 

That's what you get for coming up with a half-baked idea while you're high on morphine.

Yeah, there is that too. Sherlock was really compromised in so many different ways, which is an interesting aspect to explore in any character. (But that's still not an excuse for murder! Grrrr, grumble, huff huff....ok, calm again.)

 

Often wonder why Lady Smallwood doesn't show mercy towards Sherlock.

And I'm wondering if she and Mycroft aren't behind Sherlock being returned to England.