Sherlock's relationship with women

[Slithytove]

That may be true, but I certainly like "Sherlock" interpretation of Irene then "Elementary".....I mean really....Irene Adler as Moriarty? Some people probably liked it, I didn't much.

My daughter watched that episode of Elementary before I did, and said "You wait till you find out who Moriarty is - it's really bad.". She was so right. I found myself yelling at the screen, "What? Irene is Moriarty? Oh, for God's sake, how ridiculous!". About as absurd as changing Mycroft from being "the British Government" to owning a chain of restaurants. Why....?

 

I am afraid I don't agree that Sherlock doesn't romanticise. I think the "dragon slayer" is a great romantic, - particularly where his own persona is concerned.

[sherlockandjohn]

Aha, topic for discussion! Is Sherlock a romantic?

 

When I argue that he isn't, it's because of statements like: "Don't make people into heroes; heroes don't exist...", "Will caring about them help save them?", "Not much cop, this caring lark", "Love is a dangerous disadvantage"... etc. Also, he has a realism/slight cynicism towards even his friends. I think of His Last Vow, when he exposes John as the danger-seeking army doctor, and exposes Mary with words like: "Remind you of anyone, Mary? A facade."

 

I tend to romanticise people; wanting them to be better than they are. I don't think Sherlock needs to do that, because quite frankly he's - well - a bit morally compromised  so he's okay with Mary being an ex-assasin, and his landlady having been an exotic dancer, and so on. When I say 'morally compromised', it's of course a matter of perspective.

 

You could also argue that he only wants to remain realistic rather than romantic, as he is certainly portrayed very heroically, despite his own statements. I think Mycroft is right; he sees himself as a dragon slayer. Perhaps not in series 1, but definitely starts to in series 2.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I don't think it means someone is morally compromised to be able to accept people as they are. He can't change people's past, but he can be able to accept them as they are now in the present. I think that we, as humans, are called upon to do that to a certain extent. There is an old saying: There but for the grace of God go I. 

 

  Sherlock could have been another Moriarty but he wasn't. Maybe again, another Magnussen....but he wasn't .

[Carol the Dabbler]

That may be true, but I certainly like "Sherlock" interpretation of Irene then "Elementary".....I mean really....Irene Adler as Moriarty?  Some people probably liked it, I didn't much.

 

Elementary doesn't even have an Irene Adler, that was just an alias.  What they do have is a female Moriarty that their Sherlock is in love with.  I thought that was their weakest episode yet, because it substituted a "big reveal" for an actual plot.  In general I think it's a good show, but that was a wasted hour.

[T.o.b.y]

Aha, topic for discussion! Is Sherlock a romantic?

 

When I argue that he isn't, it's because of statements like: "Don't make people into heroes; heroes don't exist...", "Will caring about them help save them?", "Not much cop, this caring lark", "Love is a dangerous disadvantage"... etc. Also, he has a realism/slight cynicism towards even his friends. I think of His Last Vow, when he exposes John as the danger-seeking army doctor, and exposes Mary with words like: "Remind you of anyone, Mary? A facade."

 

I think Sherlock is a romantic - he has "the heart of a poet", as one of the writers once put it (I think...), but he's also way too intelligent to not have his brain burst it's own bubbles all the time. Except in the case of Mary - and, presumably, Redbeard's death.

 

[Ruthyone]

Is Sherlock a romantic? Well, I don't think of him as a 'knight in white armour' and he's not particularly chivelrous......and he hasn't given anyone a red rose! I don't think he thinks about his life like that - he just loves a puzzle that will challenge him. Others may see his antics as romantic but I don't think it crosses his mind.

[sherlockandjohn]

I don't think it means someone is morally compromised to be able to accept people as they are. He can't change people's past, but he can be able to accept them as they are now in the present. I think that we, as humans, are called upon to do that to a certain extent. There is an old saying: There but for the grace of God go I. 

 

  Sherlock could have been another Moriarty but he wasn't. Maybe again, another Magnussen....but he wasn't .

 

How right you are (and I like that quote; thanks for reminding me of it)! I don't mean to say that Sherlock (or the rest of us) should not accept Mary (or anyone else) as she is... rather that he seems to respect her for what she is - or perhaps that's stretching it? I don't know. I mean, is he fine with her killing the bad guys? He might be, and that's what I mean by 'morally compromised'. Again, it's a tough subject, because as Mary says: "People like Magnussen should be killed". I think he deserves it, but is she (or we) to decide who lives and who dies? I personally can't support that, even if it probably means saving someone else's life. As humans we have a very limited perspective, so I don't think we should make that call. Sherlock, however, does. And Mary has clearly done so several times before.

 

On the other hand, this is of course a story, not reality, and we could take the whole situation symbolically, which I tend to do, unless I start analysing and moralising. Symbolically, it's the old story of good vs evil; the 'dragon slayer' defeats the enemy, and the 'innocent' (here it would be John and the baby) go free. What makes this story so controversial is that 'good' and 'evil' are not entirely clear terms here. Magnussen doesn't kill people (though indirectly one might argue that he does), but Mary, John, and Sherlock do. However, Sherlock and John only kill to protect others - and I assume the same goes for Mary - whereas Magnussen is entirely self-serving.

 

But, oops, straying somewhat from the topic of the thread! Though Sherlock's relationship with Mary is certainly interesting, and I wonder what will become of it in series 4. Something to look forward to seeing, for sure.

[sherlockandjohn]

Is Sherlock a romantic? Well, I don't think of him as a 'knight in white armour' and he's not particularly chivelrous......and he hasn't given anyone a red rose! I don't think he thinks about his life like that - he just loves a puzzle that will challenge him. Others may see his antics as romantic but I don't think it crosses his mind.

 

And yet, both John and Mycroft seem to think that Sherlock sees himself as a 'hero' and a 'dragon slayer'. I'm not sure they're right, either - I never used to think so - but I think the writers are telling us that Sherlock does see himself that way.

 

I think Sherlock is a hero for his friends, but other people are mostly pieces of a puzzle to him... though less so as time passes. He has changed, post-Reichenbach I believe, but also gradually since he befriended John.

[Ruthyone]

 

I don't think it means someone is morally compromised to be able to accept people as they are. He can't change people's past, but he can be able to accept them as they are now in the present. I think that we, as humans, are called upon to do that to a certain extent. There is an old saying: There but for the grace of God go I. 

 

  Sherlock could have been another Moriarty but he wasn't. Maybe again, another Magnussen....but he wasn't .

 

How right you are (and I like that quote; thanks for reminding me of it)! I don't mean to say that Sherlock (or the rest of us) should not accept Mary (or anyone else) as she is... rather that he seems to respect her for what she is - or perhaps that's stretching it? I don't know. I mean, is he fine with her killing the bad guys? He might be, and that's what I mean by 'morally compromised'. Again, it's a tough subject, because as Mary says: "People like Magnussen should be killed". I think he deserves it, but is she (or we) to decide who lives and who dies? I personally can't support that, even if it probably means saving someone else's life. As humans we have a very limited perspective, so I don't think we should make that call. Sherlock, however, does. And Mary has clearly done so several times before.

 

On the other hand, this is of course a story, not reality, and we could take the whole situation symbolically, which I tend to do, unless I start analysing and moralising. Symbolically, it's the old story of good vs evil; the 'dragon slayer' defeats the enemy, and the 'innocent' (here it would be John and the baby) go free. What makes this story so controversial is that 'good' and 'evil' are not entirely clear terms here. Magnussen doesn't kill people (though indirectly one might argue that he does), but Mary, John, and Sherlock do. However, Sherlock and John only kill to protect others - and I assume the same goes for Mary - whereas Magnussen is entirely self-serving.

 

But, oops, straying somewhat from the topic of the thread! Though Sherlock's relationship with Mary is certainly interesting, and I wonder what will become of it in series 4. Something to look forward to seeing, for sure.

 

 

I think Sherlock is hiding a few things where Mary's concerned. I don't think he respects her for 'killing' people' but that's she's a strong person.  We know Magnussen had stuff on her but she may well have been contracted to kill him.

People are made up of dark and light and everyone has things to like about them. As you say, we are speculating about what may happen in Series 4 - but I somehow don't think Mary will become 'sweet and innocent.'

 

[sherlockandjohn]

I don't think so either. I doubt Mofftiss set us up for that, after all the drama in HLV. But that's completely fine with me, as long as she doesn't become an action hero, and/or start killing people again. I hope she manages to leave that life behind her, even though it may still haunt her.

[Ruthyone]

I don't want her to spoil the relationship with Sherlock and John, SherlockandJohn(couldn't resist that!) - it would be wrong and I know men/women are equal but John shouldn't be left minding the baby!!!

[sherlockandjohn]

Well, obviously I don't want that either  and I can't imagine the writers do.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... both John and Mycroft seem to think that Sherlock sees himself as a 'hero' and a 'dragon slayer'. I'm not sure they're right, either - I never used to think so - but I think the writers are telling us that Sherlock does see himself that way.

Well, they also keep saying (and having the other characters say) that John is an adrenaline junkie, whereas I see him more as wanting to do something useful and meaningful, such as save people (such as Sherlock and I suppose now Mary) from themselves. There's always room for individual interpretation.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

There's always room for individual interpretation.

 

Thank goodness, yes. Especially when it comes to John in HLV;

I cannot make sense of him having known, in his heart, the things that were revealed about Mary. Never mind that he is attracted to danger; but to suggest that he actually likes Mary's past identity was a bit out of line. I hope Moffat means that John knew she had a dangerous element - and not that he likes the 'ex-assasin' part. I probably took those lines a bit too literally:

"So you were an assasin. Perfect. How did I not see that?"

"You did see that. And you married me. Because he's right. It's what you like."

Quite literally, it says that John deep down knew what she was and liked it. However, it's probably more like there was something exciting about her which drew him to her in the first place.

 

 

Also, this forum would be quite dull without personal interpretation.

[Ruthyone]

We don't know much about Mary and John's relationship before their marriage and Mary could have manipulated the whole thing. He needed someone to care for and Mary arrived, a very strong determined woman. She could be using him because of Sherlock and just be using John to find out important details/plans. I notice we haven't got a Mary Morstan smiley yet - does the Smiley team know something we don't?

[Caya]

Well we do, in a way: .

[sherlockandjohn]

 

I don't think it means someone is morally compromised to be able to accept people as they are. He can't change people's past, but he can be able to accept them as they are now in the present. I think that we, as humans, are called upon to do that to a certain extent. There is an old saying: There but for the grace of God go I. 

 

  Sherlock could have been another Moriarty but he wasn't. Maybe again, another Magnussen....but he wasn't .

 

How right you are (and I like that quote; thanks for reminding me of it)! I don't mean to say that Sherlock (or the rest of us) should not accept Mary (or anyone else) as she is... rather that he seems to respect her for what she is - or perhaps that's stretching it? I don't know. I mean, is he fine with her killing the bad guys? He might be, and that's what I mean by 'morally compromised'. Again, it's a tough subject, because as Mary says: "People like Magnussen should be killed". I think he deserves it, but is she (or we) to decide who lives and who dies? I personally can't support that, even if it probably means saving someone else's life. As humans we have a very limited perspective, so I don't think we should make that call. Sherlock, however, does. And Mary has clearly done so several times before.

 

On the other hand, this is of course a story, not reality, and we could take the whole situation symbolically, which I tend to do, unless I start analysing and moralising. Symbolically, it's the old story of good vs evil; the 'dragon slayer' defeats the enemy, and the 'innocent' (here it would be John and the baby) go free. What makes this story so controversial is that 'good' and 'evil' are not entirely clear terms here. Magnussen doesn't kill people (though indirectly one might argue that he does), but Mary, John, and Sherlock do. However, Sherlock and John only kill to protect others - and I assume the same goes for Mary - whereas Magnussen is entirely self-serving.

 

But, oops, straying somewhat from the topic of the thread! Though Sherlock's relationship with Mary is certainly interesting, and I wonder what will become of it in series 4. Something to look forward to seeing, for sure.

 

 

Just one more thing I thought of: Dramatically, it's a great story - even if it isn't morally. We've got Sherlock, this man who was pretty much alone until John came along. They became friends; John put up with quite a few things from Sherlock's side, and honestly Sherlock is a lot like a kid sometimes. But here he becomes the protector. The transformation is pretty amazing. Even Sherlock himself says that he is a 'ridiculous man' and a 'baby'. The drama of Sherlock killing Magnussen works so well, because of the circumstances that make him seem heroic and self-sacrificing for John (and for Mary, but in the end that's for John too - otherwise Sherlock would probably not have done it).

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

The drama of Sherlock killing Magnussen works so well, because of the circumstances that make him seem heroic and self-sacrificing for John (and for Mary, but in the end that's for John too - otherwise Sherlock would probably not have done it).

 

  I agree. Sherlock would not have resorted to such extreme measures if Magnussen hadn't shown how utterly disdainful he was of people and would go to such great length to degrade and humiliate John, and in essence, everyone he believed he controlled and owned, look how he treated Lady Smallwood. In the stories, Holmes got very indignant when a woman was abused. We see this reaction when Magnussen mentions the strange noises Janine made when he flicked her face.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... when it comes to John in HLV;I cannot make sense of him having known, in his heart, the things that were revealed about Mary. Never mind that he is attracted to danger; but to suggest that he actually likes Mary's past identity was a bit out of line. I hope Moffat means that John knew she had a dangerous element - and not that he likes the 'ex-assasin' part....

He's clearly attracted to her, but right, I don't see how that necessarily means that he's attracted to what she did in the past (which he didn't even know about). He's presumably attracted to her as a person -- perhaps in part because she doesn't beat around the bush, she knows what she wants and goes for it (a trait that she exhibits all along) -- perhaps in part because of her humor (which is very much like his) -- perhaps in part because he's picked up on her fear (though he doesn't know what she's afraid of) and wants to protect her.  Probably a whole mixture of things.  But probably not "Oh, goodie, an assassin!"

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

The drama of Sherlock killing Magnussen works so well, because of the circumstances that make him seem heroic and self-sacrificing for John (and for Mary, but in the end that's for John too - otherwise Sherlock would probably not have done it.)

 

I don't know about that... My feeling is that like the original Holmes, Sherlock is supremely egocentric. I think he did it mostly for himself. I see him standing there and letting Magnussen gloat over his defeat until he can't stand it anymore, thinking "I wish I could kill him" and then reaching the conclusion "I'm Sherlock Holmes, prepared to do anything ordinary people won't do, prepared to burn - I can kill him!" and then he just waits until he has witnesses so John won't be implicated and, of course, so his dramatic stunt gets all the audience it deserves. It seems like a heroic, self-sacrificing act but it is a role Sherlock has cast himself in - the hero, the dragon slayer, the sociopath who can do as he pleases all in one. His ego needs this after Magnussen has badly humiliated him and besides, Magnussen has won, anyway and this is Sherlock at least going down with a crash and a bang, regaining a bit of superficial dignity and taking the villain with him.

 

I think that for Sherlock, the people he loves are more or less extensions of his own self. He doesn't see them independently (this shows the most clearly when he says in The Empty Hearse "what life - I've been away"). They are part of his own little world, voices in his mind palace and become habits like the violin or the skull on the mantlepiece. So if you insult, humiliate or threaten them, that's an attack on Sherlock himself.

 

If Sherlock had really considered John's feelings or wishes, he would probably have gone to prison quietly and waited for Mycroft to argue him out. John seems shocked and horrified when Sherlock pulls the trigger and might well ask with Mycroft "oh Sherlock, what have you done now". If he's not terribly effusive and grateful at the end, when they take leave on the airfield, maybe it is because he's not grateful at all, maybe he's quite pissed off that Sherlock seems to have learned nothing from The Reichenbach Fall, after all - he took his friend along for the confrontation with the "baddie" this time, but when push came to shove, he once again took matters into his own hands, confided in nobody and took a dramatic, risky way out that effectively separated him from his friends and his home again. John might well be a bit exasperated with "Sherlock's way of doing things" by now. That does not mean he can't be sad to see him go or that he must have stopped caring about him, quite the contrary - if I saw my best friend ruin his life for the second time and doing it in my name to "save me" and my family when I never asked for him to do that, I'd be pretty angry.

 

Okay, now I've strayed far from the topic. But if Sherlock didn't do it for himself, I think he would have done it for Mary alone, even if she hadn't been John's wife. I even think he'd have done it for Lady Smallwood, if Magnussen had pushed his buttons hard enough.

 

[Ruthyone]

I don't know whether Sherlock meant to kill Magnussen but he was put in a predicament with the helicopters and armed forces surrounding him. If he hadn't killed Magnussen, then Magnussen would have something else on him. Perhaps that's one of the reasons Sherlock killed him. I don't think it was for Mary - she's strong enough to look after herself. He would save John though and could have saved Mycroft embarrassment as well.

[Arcadia]

Here's Moffat's take on Magnussen's demise. I rather intensely dislike his response, (Oh, so it's okay to play God now, is it, Mr. Moffat?) but hey. I'm sure he'll cry all the way to the bank. :-)

 

 

 

(Interviewer) I liked, but was surprised that Sherlock kills Magnussen. Is it going to affect him next season?

(Moffat) [Laughs.] People are worried so much about that! Have we forgotten that John shot someone in the back in episode one? And then had a giggle about it? Do you know what? I would have shot Magnussen.

 

 

It was the right thing to do, but ...

I think people who behave like that should get shot. I don’t have a problem with it. If someone treated my family like that I would kill them and I’d spend absolutely no time worrying about it beyond thinking, It was really messy, wasn’t it? It’s a bit icky when he was bleeding all over there. But F*** it, if you behave that way, what do you think is gonna happen to you? I don’t think that will change Sherlock. He certainly won’t be haunted by guilt. He’s way in control of his emotions enough to say, “It’s time to switch that man off.” And again, he’s friends with John, who was laughing after he shot a guy minutes after he did it. C’mon! These are dangerous boys.

 

http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/sherlock-finale-postmortem-steven-moffat-interview.html

[sherlockandjohn]

 

The drama of Sherlock killing Magnussen works so well, because of the circumstances that make him seem heroic and self-sacrificing for John (and for Mary, but in the end that's for John too - otherwise Sherlock would probably not have done it.)

 

I don't know about that... My feeling is that like the original Holmes, Sherlock is supremely egocentric. I think he did it mostly for himself. I see him standing there and letting Magnussen gloat over his defeat until he can't stand it anymore, thinking "I wish I could kill him" and then reaching the conclusion "I'm Sherlock Holmes, prepared to do anything ordinary people won't do, prepared to burn - I can kill him!" and then he just waits until he has witnesses so John won't be implicated and, of course, so his dramatic stunt gets all the audience it deserves. It seems like a heroic, self-sacrificing act but it is a role Sherlock has cast himself in - the hero, the dragon slayer, the sociopath who can do as he pleases all in one. His ego needs this after Magnussen has badly humiliated him and besides, Magnussen has won, anyway and this is Sherlock at least going down with a crash and a bang, regaining a bit of superficial dignity and taking the villain with him.

 

I think that for Sherlock, the people he loves are more or less extensions of his own self. He doesn't see them independently (this shows the most clearly when he says in The Empty Hearse "what life - I've been away"). They are part of his own little world, voices in his mind palace and become habits like the violin or the skull on the mantlepiece. So if you insult, humiliate or threaten them, that's an attack on Sherlock himself.

 

If Sherlock had really considered John's feelings or wishes, he would probably have gone to prison quietly and waited for Mycroft to argue him out. John seems shocked and horrified when Sherlock pulls the trigger and might well ask with Mycroft "oh Sherlock, what have you done now". If he's not terribly effusive and grateful at the end, when they take leave on the airfield, maybe it is because he's not grateful at all, maybe he's quite pissed off that Sherlock seems to have learned nothing from The Reichenbach Fall, after all - he took his friend along for the confrontation with the "baddie" this time, but when push came to shove, he once again took matters into his own hands, confided in nobody and took a dramatic, risky way out that effectively separated him from his friends and his home again. John might well be a bit exasperated with "Sherlock's way of doing things" by now. That does not mean he can't be sad to see him go or that he must have stopped caring about him, quite the contrary - if I saw my best friend ruin his life for the second time and doing it in my name to "save me" and my family when I never asked for him to do that, I'd be pretty angry.

 

Okay, now I've strayed far from the topic. But if Sherlock didn't do it for himself, I think he would have done it for Mary alone, even if she hadn't been John's wife. I even think he'd have done it for Lady Smallwood, if Magnussen had pushed his buttons hard enough.

 

 

 

Ah, this is interesting! Since I am a romantic myself, it is very interesting to hear views that are not. Sherlock is indeed ego-centric, and part of him probably rejoices that he could place himself in the position of a hero. However, I disagree that Sherlock had the choice of going to prison, if he wanted to consider John's feelings. I mean, John was with Sherlock when they handed over Mycroft's computer; he was an accomplice. Furthermore, Mary and John would constantly be in danger if Magnussen wasn't killed. That's why Sherlock shot Magnussen. To protect. But I think he was somewhat glad to do it (and I don't like that part, but I do understand it - Magnussen is horrible). No doubt he likes to see himself as a hero.

 

He might have done it for anyone if - as you say - Magnussen had pushed his buttons hard enough. There's only so much Sherlock's ego can take.

[sherlockandjohn]

Here's Moffat's take on Magnussen's demise. I rather intensely dislike his response, (Oh, so it's okay to play God now, is it, Mr. Moffat?) but hey. I'm sure he'll cry all the way to the bank. :-)

 

 

 

(Interviewer) I liked, but was surprised that Sherlock kills Magnussen. Is it going to affect him next season?

(Moffat) [Laughs.] People are worried so much about that! Have we forgotten that John shot someone in the back in episode one? And then had a giggle about it? Do you know what? I would have shot Magnussen.

 

 

It was the right thing to do, but ...

I think people who behave like that should get shot. I don’t have a problem with it. If someone treated my family like that I would kill them and I’d spend absolutely no time worrying about it beyond thinking, It was really messy, wasn’t it? It’s a bit icky when he was bleeding all over there. But F*** it, if you behave that way, what do you think is gonna happen to you? I don’t think that will change Sherlock. He certainly won’t be haunted by guilt. He’s way in control of his emotions enough to say, “It’s time to switch that man off.” And again, he’s friends with John, who was laughing after he shot a guy minutes after he did it. C’mon! These are dangerous boys.

 

http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/sherlock-finale-postmortem-steven-moffat-interview.html

 

 

My initial response to that was also intense dislike. I'm okay with the symbolic gestures of Sherlock and John killing others for the sake of protecting each other - but only symbolically. If this was real life, I'd have a problem with what Sherlock did. Not so much John, though - I mean, Sherlock could have died in ASiP. But then again, John and Mary could also be in life-threatening danger at some point if Sherlock hadn't killed Magnussen. No, I don't at all like that Moffat says he would have killed Magnussen, but I can live with it as long as I don't take the whole situation too seriously. I find myself needing to distance myself a bit after His Last Vow

[T.o.b.y]

Here's Moffat's take on Magnussen's demise. I rather intensely dislike his response, (Oh, so it's okay to play God now, is it, Mr. Moffat?) but hey. I'm sure he'll cry all the way to the bank. :-)

 

 

 

(Interviewer) I liked, but was surprised that Sherlock kills Magnussen. Is it going to affect him next season?

(Moffat) [Laughs.] People are worried so much about that! Have we forgotten that John shot someone in the back in episode one? And then had a giggle about it? Do you know what? I would have shot Magnussen.

 

 

It was the right thing to do, but ...

I think people who behave like that should get shot. I don’t have a problem with it. If someone treated my family like that I would kill them and I’d spend absolutely no time worrying about it beyond thinking, It was really messy, wasn’t it? It’s a bit icky when he was bleeding all over there. But F*** it, if you behave that way, what do you think is gonna happen to you? I don’t think that will change Sherlock. He certainly won’t be haunted by guilt. He’s way in control of his emotions enough to say, “It’s time to switch that man off.” And again, he’s friends with John, who was laughing after he shot a guy minutes after he did it. C’mon! These are dangerous boys.

 

http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/sherlock-finale-postmortem-steven-moffat-interview.html

 

 

Am I a horrible person if I add I would have shot Magnussen if I could and dared? It was all I could do to contain myself not to try and reach inside the TV and throttle the guy.

I'd have killed Moriarty, too, if I could. Magnussen and Moriarty are villains, they were made to be vanquished. Thank goodness people like them aren't possible in real life (I devoutly hope). I'd never, ever kill a real person and my imagination is not up to creating full-blooded villains, but if Moffat had let Magnussen walk away, I bet my brain would have spent the next few months dreaming up elaborate assassination plans.

 

No, of course Sherlock won't be "haunted by guilt". God, this is Sherlock Holmes, not the good Samaritan. He's not an angel, only on the angels' side, remember? It was all he could do to feel a little sorry for what he'd put John through after The Fall, I seriously doubt he'll waste any time worrying about Magnussen. If anything, he might feel defeated because he was driven to resort to such a messy, crude, not clever way of getting rid of him.

 

"These are dangerous boys"... awww. That sounds kind of... indulgent. Like a fond parent talking about his rowdy sons.