Sherlock's relationship with women

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

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

 

  Which he is, pretty much. Even Mrs. Hudson tells a depressed Sherlock that a good murder will cheer him up. She even has to smile when he's all excited about going out to hunt up a serial suicide.

[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

 

 

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.

 

Well, for me, it's not about whether someone deserves to die. It's about whether any individual has the "right" to take a life.

 

I wish I could remember which novel this is in, but as one author put it: The injunction is "Thou shalt not kill." It's not "Thou shalt not kill unless there's some mitigating circumstance." The character who said this had just offed a bad guy. He was protecting someone and felt he had no other choice -- but he acknowledged that he had violated a higher law. That's all I'm looking for ... some recognition that it's wrong for humans to play God. (And I want to point out that I don't practice any particular religion. I just believe in the sanctity of life, and religious language is the only thing I have at hand to try to explain what I mean.)

 

The alternative to shooting Magnussen is not to let him walk away -- it's to have Sherlock use his "beautiful gifts" to turn the tables on this scumbag and destroy his ability to destroy others. THAT solution would've had me on my feet and cheering.

 

Having said that, I think HLV might be my favorite episode to date, because I had SUCH a powerful emotional response to it, and I love when fiction does that, even if I don't agree with it. I thought it was a beautifully done bit of drama. Hope they're not all like that from now on ... I don't think my heart can take it!

[T.o.b.y]

Well, for me, it's not about whether someone deserves to die. It's about whether any individual has the "right" to take a life.

 

I wish I could remember which novel this is in, but as one author put it: The injunction is "Thou shalt not kill." It's not "Thou shalt not kill unless there's some mitigating circumstance." The character who said this had just offed a bad guy. He was protecting someone and felt he had no other choice -- but he acknowledged that he had violated a higher law. That's all I'm looking for ... some recognition that it's wrong for humans to play God. (And I want to point out that I don't practice any particular religion. I just believe in the sanctity of life, and religious language is the only thing I have at hand to try to explain what I mean.)

 

The alternative to shooting Magnussen is not to let him walk away -- it's to have Sherlock use his "beautiful gifts" to turn the tables on this scumbag and destroy his ability to destroy others. THAT solution would've had me on my feet and cheering.

 

In principle, I fully agree with you. But it seems my principles become very elastic where Sherlock is concerned. I suspect he could rob a bank and spend the money on cocaine and I'd find an excuse for that...

 

However, the original Mr Holmes did like to "play god", or at least judge and jury. And Sherlock seems to see himself as above and beyond the rules that apply to "ordinary people" - he's disturbingly like Moriarty in that aspect. Also, Milverton's whole point always seemed to me that he was the one villain whom Sherlock Holmes could not beat (I don't count the original Miss Adler as a villain). So it's fine with me that Sherlock has to resort to murder here to get rid of him - it's nothing more than an extreme form of defeat and so quite true to the original story, I think.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

Such an interesting discussion going on here! I make excuses for Sherlock, too; I think we're meant to. It is the difference between fiction and reality. Throughout all the episodes, I laugh when Sherlock manipulates John, and offends everybody - okay, sometimes I get annoyed with him (especially when it concerns Molly), but all in all it's more amusing than annoying. In reality, I'd laugh less. No doubt about it.

 

There is, of course, a difference between manipulating with someone's feelings and shooting someone - the stakes are raised in HLV, and the moral issues are stronger.

 

It's strange, really. I'm glad that Magnussen is out of the way, but I feel uncomfortable with the statement that 'people like Magnussen should be killed; that's why there are people like me'. So I wanted him dead, but I didn't want either Mary or Sherlock to kill him... Actually that's not quite true, either, because I'm glad Sherlock did what he did for John and Mary.

 

Can't even understand my own reasoning

[Pamela]

Well, we also thought Moriarty was "out of the way," didn't we?

[Arcadia]

 

 

So it's fine with me that Sherlock has to resort to murder here to get rid of him - it's nothing more than an extreme form of defeat and so quite true to the original story, I think.

 

 

I think that's why that scene was such a gut-punch for me ... I always hurt when my heroes are reduced to the level of the villians. (I'm such a romantic...)

[Arcadia]

Okay, let me fan the flames some more. (Warning: my friends call me "The Instigator." :-)
 
I was just responding to a different thread (Best Episodes) and it reminded me of this.
 
Earlier, someone (Radcap, I believe) had a theory that Sherlock had figured out early on that CAM kept all his data in a mind palace.
 
Sherlock's morphine "addiction", his defeated posture when he learned the glasses were just glasses -- those were just a ruse to make CAM think Sherlock was not a threat. Sherlock's goal was to get into Appledore and confirm that the data existed only in CAM's mind.
 
IF this theory were correct -- it means Sherlock meant all along to shoot CAM. That's why he made sure John had brought his gun.
 
In other words, the murder was premeditated.
 
If this were true -- would it make a difference in how you felt about it? That is, is it okay for Sherlock to shoot someone in a moment of rage -- but not in cold blood? The outcome is the same -- the removal of CAM -- and the motive is the same -- protecting one's friends -- but one is a spontaneous act of desperation, the other is carefully planned in advance. Does it make a difference?
 
ALSO -- what if Mycroft was in on it all along? I've long thought it suspicious that he would bring his laptop FILLED WITH STATE SECRETS with him at Christmas. So let's suppose Mycroft was in on it. That means he-who-is-the-British-government approved of Sherlock's plan.

 

If this were true, would THAT make a difference? Now it's not premeditated murder, it's a state-sanctioned assassination.

 

When I thought of this, I was shocked, because for some reason for me it does make a difference. Sherlock shooting someone in a rage: bad. Sherlock committing premeditated murder; this is so awful I can't even contemplate it, even tho it fits the known facts really, really well.

 

State-sanctioned murder? Suddenly I don't feel as bad. Or rather, I still hate it, but at least now Sherlock doesn't bear full responsibility for it.

 

Gawd, the heart is a funny ol' thing, isn't it?

 

What do y'all think?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

ALSO -- what if Mycroft was in on it all along? I've long thought it suspicious that he would bring his laptop FILLED WITH STATE SECRETS with him at Christmas. So let's suppose Mycroft was in on it. That means he-who-is-the-British-government approved of Sherlock's plan.

 

 

  That struck as being extremely odd as well. I mean really, it should have been either locked up in a high security bank vault somewhere or at the very least, chained to his wrist, not....and I do mean 'not'.....laying about on the kitchen table in front of his "dragon-slaying" brother who is after Magnussen.

 

 Yes, Mycroft's reaction in the chopper and the tears in Sherlock's eyes after the shooting points to the possibility that this was not quite the outcome either one had been expecting....but Mycroft provided the bait i.e. the briefcase...so that would account for his little speech at the window.

[Arcadia]

And their conversation while they're smoking in the garden would be hard to explain away. Still, it's an intriguing theory, innit?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh I do believe that big brother was behind the scenes trying to manipulate things, as he always seems to be, being "The British Government" and "sometimes moonlighting as the CIA".  Always driving Sherlock into somebody's path, as Mycroft did with Irene Adler.  Of course, in this case, Lady Smallwood needs to shoulder some of the responsibility for getting Sherlock involved with Magnussen.

[Carol the Dabbler]

IF this theory were correct -- it means Sherlock meant all along to shoot CAM. That's why he made sure John had brought his gun.

 

In other words, the murder was premeditated.

 

If this were true -- would it make a difference in how you felt about it? That is, is it okay for Sherlock to shoot someone in a moment of rage -- but not in cold blood? The outcome is the same -- the removal of CAM -- and the motive is the same -- protecting one's friends -- but one is a spontaneous act of desperation, the other is carefully planned in advance. Does it make a difference?

 

ALSO -- what if Mycroft was in on it all along? I've long thought it suspicious that he would bring his laptop FILLED WITH STATE SECRETS with him at Christmas. So let's suppose Mycroft was in on it. That means he-who-is-the-British-government approved of Sherlock's plan.

 

If this were true, would THAT make a difference? Now it's not premeditated murder, it's a state-sanctioned assassination.

 

My best guess is that it was a premeditated act of desperation.  That is, Sherlock suspected the "vaults" were in CAM's head, but he didn't know for sure, so he was playing two games in parallel.  He was probably hoping to be proven wrong.  But when he wasn't -- well, just as in "Reichenbach," there's always Plan B.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Mycroft were basically an accomplice -- though as Fox says, presumably neither of them really knew exactly how things would turn out.

 

But that wasn't your question, was it?  Does any of the above make a difference in how I feel about it?

 

Frankly, I feel much more comfortable with the idea that Sherlock had thought things through and investigated all other options and ruled them out before resorting to -- well, his last resort.  He did it because it was absolutely the only solution he could think of, rather than because he panicked.

 

Mycroft's involvement or lack thereof doesn't much matter to me in that regard.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

He did it because it was absolutely the only solution he could think of, rather than because he panicked.

 

 

  I can just imagine that high speed brain of his weighing every option, every possibility and outcome.....I can't see him as panicked as much as resigned to his next course of action no matter how repulsive that was going to be and the repercussions.

[Slithytove]

I don't agree that Sherlock knew about CAM's mind palace. Look at his face during and immediately after the revelation - shocked and anxious, with nothing to say. If he was expecting the vaults to be non-existent, why does he look so distressed, when he was previously so cheerful when walking to the helicopter?

 

Sherlock's antipathy to CAM is a bit of a puzzle. Why does he find him more repulsive than serial killers and psychopaths? Apparently because he preys on the weaknesses of people who are different. But the only blackmail we know of involves Mary (a past as a killer) and Lord Smallwood (explicit letters to an under-age girl). Neither of those subjects amount to being "different". Presumably Sherlock knows of someone who is "different" and has been targeted by CAM and this has, for some reason, really got to him.

 

In Conan Doyle's days, the most likely "difference" as a blackmail subject would be homosexuality, but would it destroy many people to be outed these days? I wonder just what it is that makes Sherlock hate CAM with particular vehemence?

[T.o.b.y]

 

IF this theory were correct -- it means Sherlock meant all along to shoot CAM. That's why he made sure John had brought his gun.

 

In other words, the murder was premeditated.

 

If this were true -- would it make a difference in how you felt about it? That is, is it okay for Sherlock to shoot someone in a moment of rage -- but not in cold blood? The outcome is the same -- the removal of CAM -- and the motive is the same -- protecting one's friends -- but one is a spontaneous act of desperation, the other is carefully planned in advance. Does it make a difference?

 

ALSO -- what if Mycroft was in on it all along? I've long thought it suspicious that he would bring his laptop FILLED WITH STATE SECRETS with him at Christmas. So let's suppose Mycroft was in on it. That means he-who-is-the-British-government approved of Sherlock's plan.

 

If this were true, would THAT make a difference? Now it's not premeditated murder, it's a state-sanctioned assassination.

 

My best guess is that it was a premeditated act of desperation.  That is, Sherlock suspected the "vaults" were in CAM's head, but he didn't know for sure, so he was playing two games in parallel.  He was probably hoping to be proven wrong.  But when he wasn't -- well, just as in "Reichenbach," there's always Plan B.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Mycroft were basically an accomplice -- though as Fox says, presumably neither of them really knew exactly how things would turn out.

 

But that wasn't your question, was it?  Does any of the above make a difference in how I feel about it?

 

Frankly, I feel much more comfortable with the idea that Sherlock had thought things through and investigated all other options and ruled them out before resorting to -- well, his last resort.  He did it because it was absolutely the only solution he could think of, rather than because he panicked.

 

Mycroft's involvement or lack thereof doesn't much matter to me in that regard.

 

 

I agree with Carol. I can't imagine Sherlock panicking. It was probably more of an "13 different possibilities once we were in that building" kind of thing...

 

How do I feel about that? Fine. Sherlock is welcome to plot the possible murder of "a poisonous thing" (that's what the original assassin calls Milverton) as a last resort in case all else fails. I like his heroic side and I'm glad he has a heart, but I do also love his darker side. When I first fell in love with this character in series 1, the debate was still out on whether he was any better than Moriarty! I'm afraid that if Sherlock were a classic "good" hero and a role model for the rest of us, I'd find him boring and would be rooting for the villains. I like the "high functioning sociopath". I remember the chill that went down my spine when I first saw A Study in Pink as Sherlock put his foot on the cabbie's shoulder and said "you're dying - but there's still time to hurt you".

 

I do wish Mycroft was not involved in the plan this time. I'll probably be proven wrong again, but I'd really like it if for once, Sherlock went against his big brother and really did steal that laptop. I'd like it if Sherlock was able to drug Mycroft and nick his possessions. Mycroft is way too superior in general.

 

I'm afraid you meant how do I feel about all this morally though, am I right? Well, in general, I don't approve of murder for any reason. Self defense, okay, but that still doesn't make it right. That's just preventing greater wrong. As for premeditated, cold-blooded killing, that is of course worse and government-sanctioned assassination is another level of worse. And then comes war, which is the worst of all. But, as I said, my principles don't really apply where Sherlock is concerned. I don't look to him for moral guidance, anyway, and I get so fed up with fiction trying to tell me what is right and what is wrong. The show doesn't even condone Sherlock's behavior or applaud his choices. He himself warns us time and again that he is not a hero. We're not meant to follow his example, we're just invited to marvel at the wonders of his unique personality. Which is all I want.

 

Wow, way off topic by now. But fun. Where were we. Sherlock and women. Hm, just out of idle curiosity, does it bother you what he did to Janine as well? I loved that part...

 

[Arcadia]

So many great responses! It's Christmas!
 
No counter arguments here, just was a new idea to me and was curious how it played out for others. But I will address a few points...
 

My best guess is that it was a premeditated act of desperation. That is, Sherlock suspected the "vaults" were in CAM's head, but he didn't know for sure, so he was playing two games in parallel. He was probably hoping to be proven wrong. But when he wasn't -- well, just as in "Reichenbach," there's always Plan B.

I thought of this as well, as it would explain why he seems so ... dejected(?). Then again, it could be more acting...
 

Frankly, I feel much more comfortable with the idea that Sherlock had thought things through and investigated all other options and ruled them out before resorting to -- well, his last resort. He did it because it was absolutely the only solution he could think of, rather than because he panicked.

Oh no, there was no panic there. He'd obviously thought it thru. The only question is ... when?
 

Sherlock's antipathy to CAM is a bit of a puzzle...

Especially since Irene Adler is a blackmailer as well, but that doesn't seem to bother him... Maybe that's one reason I have so much trouble with the idea that the only solution to CAM is to kill him ... yes, he's odious, ruthless and amoral, but that describes half the politicians on Capitol Hill. That doesn't excuse killing them, however. You play their game, instead, and bring them down in other ways. I guess I wanted Sherlock to defeat CAM with his brain, not his barbarity. (KHAN!!!!!!)  Of course, something like that would probably require a great deal more than one episode....
 

Wow, way off topic by now. But fun. Where were we. Sherlock and women. Hm, just out of idle curiosity, does it bother you what he did to Janine as well? I loved that part...

Yah, sorry, after I posted that I looked at the topic heading. Ooops. Oh well.

Does it bother me what he did to Janine? Sure, but it's different ... there's no ambiguity as to whether he was being heroic in that moment or not. He was being a louse, we all knew it, even he knew it on some level, he paid for it in the end, and knew he deserved it. And they sort of declared a truce afterwards -- if Janine can forgive him, I'm not gonna quibble.

 

I quite liked Janine, she seemed to be another one who "accepts" Sherlock. I sorta hope they'll end up as friends -- either that, or we never see her again. Not too much in favor of adding more people to the cast, actually.

[cumberholmes]

 Janine is Moriarty's sister 

[Arcadia]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sherlockandjohn]

Janine... I wasn't much bothered. It's one of those cases in which I laugh it off as Sherlock being Sherlock, and I love it! Again, in reality I'd react like John and be somewhat appaled, but here I barely flinched. Besides, I had read somewhere that Sherlock did the same thing in canon, so... it wasn't a shock.

[Meyers]

Janine... I had read somewhere that Sherlock did the same thing in canon, so...

 

Hi sherlockandjohn.

 

I was wondering if you can remember where you read that in the Canon.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Meyers

[sherlockandjohn]

 

Janine... I had read somewhere that Sherlock did the same thing in canon, so...

 

Hi sherlockandjohn.

 

I was wondering if you can remember where you read that in the Canon.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Meyers

 

 

Hi Meyers,

I didn't read it in canon myself (I've only just started reading my first Sherlock novel) - but prior to His Last Vow airing, there was a link to Wikipedia in which was described that Sherlock got engaged to someone for the sake of a case. I believe the canon story is called 'The Adventures of Charles Augustus Milverton'.

 

[Meyers]

Hi sherlockandjohn.

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

Holmes was engaged in an attempt of subterfuge. It is from the CAM story.

 

I quote from the story:

 

 

For some days Holmes came and went at all hours in this attire, but beyond a remark that his time was spent at Hampstead, and that it was not wasted, I knew nothing of what he was doing. At last, however, on a wild, tempestuous evening, when the wind screamed and rattled against the windows, he returned from his last expedition, and having removed his disguise he sat before the fire and laughed heartily in his silent inward fashion.

"You would not call me a marrying man, Watson?"

"No, indeed!"

"You'll be interested to hear that I am engaged."

"My dear fellow! I congrat ----"

"To Milverton's housemaid."

"Good heavens, Holmes!"

"I wanted information, Watson."

"Surely you have gone too far?"

 

Thank you for bringing this up. It is indeed interesting.

 

 

Meyers

[Ruthyone]

If Sherlock did shoot someone in cold blood, well that would put him in the same bracket as CAM.  He knew of CAM for quite a while but whether he discussed it with Mycroft earlier, is another story. If he set out to kill CAM, well it would be wrong but if it was to save John (if he hadn't, CAM might have killed John) it is more morally accepted.

[sherlockandjohn]

I tend to agree with you, Ruthyone. However, I can also understand the attitude that if Sherlock premeditated shooting Magnussen, it doesn't necessarily mean he's more cold than if he decided on it within a few minutes. The big difference would be how long Sherlock has had to work out a plan, but I believe in either case he did the only thing he could do to stop CAM. How else can you stop a man with so much influence, when you have zero proof against him?

 

If I analyse the situation, I believe neither is more right or wrong than the other, but it's true for me that it seems colder to premeditate a murder. You will have time to reflect on what your conscience tells you and then change your mind.

 

By the way, I tend to forget that this is a thread for 'Sherlock's relationship with women'. I will move this discussion to 'His Last Vow'. Hope that's okay with you, Ruthyone!

[Ruthyone]

I shall bring a woman into this then   Would Sherlock shoot a woman in cold blood?

[Arcadia]

Good one! Think how much more this debate would've ramped up if CAM had been a woman!

 

I vote yes. I think Shezza is an equal opportunity avenger.