Episode 1.1, "A Study In Pink"

[SherlockedCAMPer]

It's possible that if it had happened later that he may pulled John's gun on the cabbie (obviously without John knowing that it was gone) with lines of you tell me if I selected the correct pill. But I don't think Sherlock would have done that's necessarily. It just doesn't seem his type completely for that particular incident.

[Redbeard]

That is a depressing thought, SherlockedCAMPer, of a Sherlock Holmes that solves every crime by pulling his gun.  We have seen that more than enough. 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Agreed.

[T.o.b.y]

Mmm, good question. He has rather more to live for now, doesn't he? But still, could he resist a challenge like that...?

 

I don't think so, really. My guess is that series 3 Sherlock might, maybe, have a few more qualms about it, but ultimately he'd make the same decision again and get in the car.

 

What I'm not so sure about is whether he'd still attempt to take the pill.

 

Pondering that latter question, I got to thinking. In the very first episode, we see Sherlock just gamble with his life as if it was a ten-pound-note. If he wasn't right, if he didn't win the game, then fine, he'd rather die anyway. That's not quite suicidal behavior, but close. I mean, he doesn't want to die, but death seems to be far from the worst he thinks can happen to him.

 

Sherlock has a death wish. Or rather, a curious fondness for the idea of death. Remember how, in The Hounds of Baskerville, the first association he had with the words "liberty in" was "liberty in death", and how, in The Sign of Three, Sherlock completely agreed when Major Sholto states there is a proper time to die and one should embrace it.

 

It's not very surprising. First of all, a person like Sherlock cannot seriously want to grow old, at least not old enough to loose his keen senses, his ability to outrun a taxi (given the right shortcuts) and certainly not old enough to witness his mind slowing down. Then, he's very good at many things, but being happy doesn't seem to be one of them, and anyway, living can be quite a chore for him, I think. That terrible boredom when there's no case, no excitement... if it was bad enough to make him risk his brain on drugs, then it must be pretty tortuous.

 

Still, he's had plenty of opportunities to die since A Study in Pink, and he's still around. When I saw Sherlock holding up that pill to the light, I never thought I'd see him claw his way up a mental staircase in immense pain only nine episodes further, fighting for his life tooth and nail when even a team of medical professionals had given up on it.

 

He's come quite a long way.

 

The more I think about it, the more fantastic his character arc becomes. This show has its faults for sure, but the title character is not one of them.

 

[Arcadia]

I think there's been even more references than those to the idea that Sherlock courts death. I hadn't really thought about that moment in HLV as possibly being a turning point; I rather hope so. I assume he'll always be a risk taker, though!

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I wonder if maybe Sherlock will calculate the risk a little more than he has in the past.  So a risk he might have taken in S1.1 or S3.3 (not including those that he did take) might not be a risk he takes in series 4.

[Arcadia]

I just watched this episode for the first time in quite awhile, and I was struck by something I remember noticing before but had forgotten -- that is, how concious I am of Sherlock's eyes, particularly while he's deducing the pink lady. No particular point here, it just really jumped out at me. I don't remember being so aware of his eyes in later episodes ... is that because they focus on them less as time goes on, or because I get used to them? Planning to watch the whole series by New Year's, see what I notice.

[T.o.b.y]

"Black, two sugars please" - I love the little detail of how Sherlock drinks his coffee, because that is just what I would expect of him. I bet his big brain demands a lot of sugar.

 

Now I wonder whether it is ridiculous to attach meaning to a snip of dialogue like that or whether it was actually intended as a bit of characterization. I am obsessed alright. Oh well...

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Refined (white) sugar affects the same part of the brain as cocaine and other mind altering drugs so there is that possibility.

 

As for attaching meaning to small dialogue, join the crowd of crazy obsessive fans that need to do something in between series of Sherlock to keep from going insane.

[T.o.b.y]

My goodness, is this episode good. I just started my next round of "lets watch all the episodes in the right order", and I'm falling in love with the series all over again, it seems.

 

They never quite got back to the magic of that beginning, if you ask me. I do wish series 4 would tone the show down to where it started: Sherlock, John, a case, London. That's really all you need.

 

Although it is fun to look at them then and think, I know what's in store for you. And it is fun to think I understand Sherlock better now. His desperate need to prove himself, the way he insults everyone around him and mocks their stupidity... Where I used to just see a genius slightly out of touch with his surroundings, I now see a sensitive, insecure, isolated little curly-haired boy whose big brother called him an idiot and told him what a disappointment he was to their parents.

 

And when Sherlock rattles off all the bad stuff that has happened to John - war, injury, alcoholic sister, lack of family support, psychosomatic disorder - all that stuff his therapist probably makes him talk about, which I bet he hates - I see John standing with clenched fists going "I find it difficult", and I think what a relief it must be, to not have to explain himself at all, and to not have to deal with any well-meaning humiliating pity or "understanding" either. Sherlock just treats it all as random facts he can use to show off his brilliance, and he still does something about it, which is more than Ella seems to have achieved during a much longer time.

 

I wonder whether Lestrade ever figured out that John was the shooter who killed the cabbie. It is fairly obvious at the end, the way Sherlock looks over and abruptly breaks off his description when he sees John, who fits the profile perfectly and had a really good motive, too. Lestrade isn't that stupid...

[Arcadia]

I have a firm belief that Lestrade's smile at the end indicates quite clearly that he knew who the shooter was.....

[sittything]

The moment where Sherlock gets the name from the dying cabbie always kinda upsets me.  I think because I really like Sherlock, and I want him to be a good man, and he's so not in that moment.

[T.o.b.y]

The moment where Sherlock gets the name from the dying cabbie always kinda upsets me.  I think because I really like Sherlock, and I want him to be a good man, and he's so not in that moment.

 

I hardly dare admit it, but I like that scene. I love all these little reminders that Sherlock is not really a "good guy". Not one of the angels for sure. I'd protest if his evil moments were glorified, but I don't think they are. Sherlock is simply not a role model. He doesn't even see himself as a hero, and we idolize him at our own risk, probably all hoping that Lestrade's prediction will come true. But it hasn't yet. He's getting there. But he still shot Magnussen. He's a dangerous man with questionable ethics. I like that.

[Boton]

 

The moment where Sherlock gets the name from the dying cabbie always kinda upsets me.  I think because I really like Sherlock, and I want him to be a good man, and he's so not in that moment.

 

I hardly dare admit it, but I like that scene. I love all these little reminders that Sherlock is not really a "good guy". Not one of the angels for sure. I'd protest if his evil moments were glorified, but I don't think they are. Sherlock is simply not a role model. He doesn't even see himself as a hero, and we idolize him at our own risk, probably all hoping that Lestrade's prediction will come true. But it hasn't yet. He's getting there. But he still shot Magnussen. He's a dangerous man with questionable ethics. I like that.

 

 

I like that scene too.  To me, Sherlock isn't a kind little teddy bear that always has the best motives, nor is he a cold-hearted automaton.  He has a range of possible responses and moods.  He's a complete human being, and I like that.

 

I also rather think that his method of getting the name out of Hope wasn't in any way out of line.  Hope had killed four people.  He was working for Moriarty.  Sherlock didn't torture just any cabbie, he minorly tortured a serial killer who was dying anyway.  He visited a little fear on someone who had just spent the past few weeks making other people fear in the last moments of their lives.  His response was proportional, in my opinion.  The fact that he felt some rage while he was doing it was pretty human.  

 

I've said it before, but white hats bore me.  Sherlock has complexity, and that doesn't make him not a good man.  It makes him a human man.

[sittything]

I do find it interesting that this scene bothers me, yet him shooting CAM I'm all breezy about.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

I hardly dare admit it, but I like that scene. I love all these little reminders that Sherlock is not really a "good guy". Not one of the angels for sure. I'd protest if his evil moments were glorified, but I don't think they are. Sherlock is simply not a role model. He doesn't even see himself as a hero, and we idolize him at our own risk, probably all hoping that Lestrade's prediction will come true. But it hasn't yet. He's getting there. But he still shot Magnussen. He's a dangerous man with questionable ethics. I like that.

 

I like that scene too.  To me, Sherlock isn't a kind little teddy bear that always has the best motives, nor is he a cold-hearted automaton.  He has a range of possible responses and moods.  He's a complete human being, and I like that.

While I can't say that I especially like that scene, for me it fits in just fine. And while I too am glad that Sherlock isn't a white hat, I'm even gladder that he's not an anti-hero. I REALLY hate anti-heroes.  There's nobody in there.

 

I do find it interesting that this scene bothers me, yet him shooting CAM I'm all breezy about.  

I think the difference is that Jeff was kinda likable, and we could appreciate his motives (if not his response to them) -- whereas Magnussen -- well, need I say more? OK, let's just say that I would not have felt the LEAST bit appreciative if Sherlock had blown Jim Moriaty's head off.

[T.o.b.y]

I also rather think that his method of getting the name out of Hope wasn't in any way out of line.  Hope had killed four people.  He was working for Moriarty.  Sherlock didn't torture just any cabbie, he minorly tortured a serial killer who was dying anyway.  He visited a little fear on someone who had just spent the past few weeks making other people fear in the last moments of their lives.  His response was proportional, in my opinion.  The fact that he felt some rage while he was doing it was pretty human. 

 

True... I still think what he did to the cabbie was evil, though. I am very sensitive about torture.

 

The good thing about Sherlock though is that he does not hurt people for the heck of it. He doesn't seem in the least sadistic. He only has certain goals and he'll use any means, fair or foul, to gain them in the most efficient manner possible, because he's less "encumbered" by the squeamishness of us ordinary mortals.

 

I do find it interesting that this scene bothers me, yet him shooting CAM I'm all breezy about.  

 

Well, we don't see Magnussen's agony up close the way we do with Hope. And Magnussen was a lot more vile, and a lot less of a "real person". 

 

I think the cabbie is my favorite Sherlock villain, actually. He's the most believable, the most realistic and the most human of all the truly "bad" guys. I'd like more antagonists like that and less monsters like Magnussen and Moriarty.

[Arcadia]

While I can't say that I especially like that scene, for me it fits in just fine. And while I too am glad that Sherlock isn't a white hat, I'm even gladder that he's not an anti-hero. I REALLY hate anti-heroes.  There's nobody in there.

Ditto. I don't like the scene, but it suits to illustrate his character at that point in time. If he did that kind of thing habitually, though, I wouldn't be watching this show. And I loathe anti-heroes too! I shudder every time I see Sherlock referred to as one. Maybe it depends on your definition of anti-hero, but I don't see him as absent heroic qualities. Flawed, yes, but anti-heroic? Hardly.

 

Well, we don't see Magnussen's agony up close the way we do with Hope. And Magnussen was a lot more vile, and a lot less of a "real person".

If you're going to kill someone, I guess blowing his brains out is a rather humane way of doing it, no? As it is my understanding the victim is dead before the body has time to react. Or maybe that's just what Hollywood wants me to believe? At any rate, my problem with killing CAM isn't the method, necessarily, it's that Sherlock doesn't possess the moral authority to make that decision.

 

On the issue of torture, I have to go with John McCain; it's a stain on one's honor. I hope Sherlock will become human enough one day to realize that.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I loathe anti-heroes too! I shudder every time I see Sherlock referred to as one. Maybe it depends on your definition of anti-hero, but I don't see him as absent heroic qualities. Flawed, yes, but anti-heroic? Hardly.

I've never read an actual definition, but my impression is that an "anti-hero" is basically a cold, heartless guy who does the angels' dirtywork. Even though he may do heroic things, he does not possess, as you say, heroic qualities. I guess I can see why people might pin that label on Sherlock, and I can even believe that Sherlock might like to think of himself in those terms. But we've seen behind his facade, so we know -- or at least suspect -- that such concepts as fair play really do matter to him, even though he may not always feel bound by them.

 

[sittything]

I guess that's the beauty of a really good, complex character.  In some ways the character of Sherlock reminds me of Doctor Who a bit (my only point of reference for Doctor Who is the reboot).  I initially assumed the Doctor was this heroic figure, but he's really not.  He's done things in his life, things that make me uncomfortable, things that make me question who he is and is he the man (figuratively I guess since he's technically an alien) I think/hope he is?  He's a damaged dragon slayer, much like Sherlock.  

[Boton]

The whole hero/anti-hero discussion reminds me a bit of the Left Behind series of books.  (Not theologically, of course.) The series followed a group of people left behind on Earth after the Rapture, which would take all of those who were already saved to heaven, leaving only those who were ultimately damned and those who could, through their choices, still be saved.  I have always thought that those books worked because, even for readers who didn't share that theology, they were a good adventure with the more human people as protagonists.  It's easier to identify with people who are a little bit dark and a little bit light, because most of us are.

 

That's what I like about this portrayal of Sherlock Holmes.  Sherlock's "salvation" is still in his own hands -- it's still up to his decisions how he develops and turns out, and he doesn't have to make every choice perfectly to still be a perfectly admirable and engaging protagonist.

 

[sfmpco]

So it occurred to me last night during one of my usual bouts of insomnia that Sherlock  wasn't necessarily looking for a roommate.  After all, he had already moved into the flat, which meant that regardless of a roommate he was somehow going to afford it.  Having a roommate simply would lessen his expenses (probably so he'd have more time to work with the police force for free).  However, he was by no means without means.

 

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

So it occurred to me last night during one of my usual bouts of insomnia that Sherlock  wasn't necessarily looking for a roommate.  After all, he had already moved into the flat, which meant that regardless of a roommate he was somehow going to afford it.  Having a roommate simply would lessen his expenses (probably so he'd have more time to work with the police force for free).  However, he was by no means without means.

 

I never thought of that before.  It makes sense.  He dresses well enough to imply that at least at some point he had some money even if it is not a trust fund or oodles of family fortune.

[MrsMiggins]

Something I wonder to this day....

 

Why did sherlock have a riding crop??

[Arcadia]

So he would have something to beat the corpse with! :D