Themes and Through-lines

[sherlockandjohn]

First of all; great thread! I really enjoyed the initial analysis by Boton of the development of Sherlock's friendship abilities; how his friendship with John becomes more and more natural, and less tense. That is to say, I see that development in series 3 as part of the aftermath of Reichenbach - I don't think the friendship suffered from any serious tension prior to The Empty Hearse. But Sherlock appreciates the bond more and more - or he's just more conscious about it.

 

Another reoccurring theme, or rather a development, throughout series 3 is the level of dependency that Sherlock and John each experience of each other.

 

In 'Hearse', John has found Mary and has had to do without Sherlock for two years - a time that he thought would be for the rest of his life. Suddenly, Sherlock is back from the dead, and John is so angry that initially he tries to let go of their friendship. It might have worked, if not for the fact that Sherlock resqued him from a fire and thus showed exactly how much he really cared, despite his other actions. On the other hand, it might not have worked anyway, since he was on his way to see Sherlock when he was sedated and kidnapped.

As for Sherlock, he too had been without his friend, and was willing to accept - without that hard a struggle to keep him in his life - that the friendship was over. Obviously, it was not what he wanted, but he didn't "sit down and cry" about it. He moved on - to Molly :-) Ah, well. Fortunately, John forgave him.

 

In 'Sign', John and Mary are getting married, and John at first doesn't quite seem to get the struggle Sherlock is finding himself in - Mary has to nudge him. There is a closeness between John and Mary that John didn't have with anyone before, except in some ways with Sherlock. I don't think he needs Sherlock as much, to be honest.

Sherlock, however, has become quite dependent on John's friendship. I just love the quote: "John, I am a ridiculous man, redeemed only by the warmth and constancy of your friendship." Sherlock realises that he needs John, or he is "ridiculous", in that he cannot connect properly with people. John is his connection to the "real lives" of others. He depends on him, just as much as he depends on his intellect for mental stimulation.

 

In 'Vow', John's dependence on Sherlock seems at first to have decreased even more, as we hear that they have not seen each other for "ages". It's actually just one month, but for John it may seem like ages, since they used to spend so much time together. (Needless to say, I'm not thinking of the time when John thought Sherlock was dead.) But the signs of "withdrawal" are there, and John needs a fix. Much more than that, I think it is firmly established just how much he needs Sherlock, when Sherlock functions as sort of a therapist for John and Mary, and yet again becomes John's rock when his world is shaken, and the woman he had grown to depend on deceives him. Of course, John eventually seems to find some trust in Mary again, but still... Sherlock was invaluable.

 

It can be debated whether or not John trusts - or can allow himself to depend on - either Mary or Sherlock now. I think he still does, but it will be interesting if in series 4 we see some consequences for John of Sherlock and Mary's deceptions.

[Arcadia]

Reading S&J's post, it makes me think that's one direction they could both grow in -- realizing they can be best buds without being "dependent" on each other. Sure, it's wonderful to have your friend at your side but it's also a good thing to be able to stand alone. Not that they both don't do that to some extent anyway. But maybe they need to realize it's okay ... it doesn't lessen their friendship if they sometimes go their own ways.

 

That's not the same as shutting the other out, by the way. Which is what Sherlock does sometimes. Usually when he knows John will disapprove, I suspect. I'm thinking of the "using drugs for a case," here; maybe the boys need to find the balance between "self-reliant" (which is probably what Sherlock thought rationalized he was being) and "unreliable" (which is what John thought he was being.)

 

I don't know, maybe they know all that already!

[Arcadia]

It can be debated whether or not John trusts - or can allow himself to depend on - either Mary or Sherlock now. I think he still does, but it will be interesting if in series 4 we see some consequences for John of Sherlock and Mary's deceptions.

Yes, and those are some pretty big deceptions. Maybe I'm just projecting myself, here, but I would need to see a LOT of proof that they've changed before I ever trusted either of them again. Although Sherlock's efforts to save Mary may have balanced the scale quite a bit, I guess. But if he just goes and pulls off another big lie the next time ... I don't know. If I were John I don't know if I'd be able to forgive any more. I guess he'll have to though, or end of show!

[sherlockandjohn]

 

It can be debated whether or not John trusts - or can allow himself to depend on - either Mary or Sherlock now. I think he still does, but it will be interesting if in series 4 we see some consequences for John of Sherlock and Mary's deceptions.

Yes, and those are some pretty big deceptions. Maybe I'm just projecting myself, here, but I would need to see a LOT of proof that they've changed before I ever trusted either of them again. Although Sherlock's efforts to save Mary may have balanced the scale quite a bit, I guess. But if he just goes and pulls off another big lie the next time ... I don't know. If I were John I don't know if I'd be able to forgive any more. I guess he'll have to though, or end of show!

 

 

I don't know - maybe he forgives but still doesn't trust? That's what I'm thinking. How do you trust anyone who doesn't mind lying to either protect themselves or as a means to an end (usually solving a case)? Especially since those lies show that those people don't fully trust you... If Sherlock and Mary had trusted John completely, they needn't have lied. Not sure about Sherlock's need to lie - and I don't think I ever will be - but Mary certainly didn't. As it turns out, John is staying with her, despite her past, and even despite her nearly killing his best friend. It's kind of sad that they don't trust him more. Understandable, perhaps, but sad.

[sherlockandjohn]

Reading S&J's post, it makes me think that's one direction they could both grow in -- realizing they can be best buds without being "dependent" on each other. Sure, it's wonderful to have your friend at your side but it's also a good thing to be able to stand alone. Not that they both don't do that to some extent anyway. But maybe they need to realize it's okay ... it doesn't lessen their friendship if they sometimes go their own ways.

 

 

I think I wouldn't mind seeing that, as long as it's not the main focus. It should feel natural - like I feel it does in His Last Vow. There is no bad feeling between the two of them because they lead separate lives now. I like that, but I also prefer to see a lot of Sherlock and John on cases together.

[Arcadia]

....It should feel natural - like I feel it does in His Last Vow. There is no bad feeling between the two of them because they lead separate lives now....

Yeh, that's why I wondered if they've already reached the point I was thinking about. Guess we'll see in the next season...

[T.o.b.y]

Hey, Boton, I'm not sure this is the kind of thing you had in mind, but I started wondering about it today ....

 

I'm guessing most of us would agree that Sherlock's growing throughout the series, in one way or another; from sociopathic to compassionate, maybe, or from great to good, or whatever else you think the change(s) may be.

 

But what about the other way around? What is John's character arc, in what way is he changing as the story progresses? I'm finding this a little tougher to make out. I suppose you could say the trust he placed in Sherlock was a step forward for him, but since that trust was somewhat violated I'm not so sure. Anyone have any insight into this?

 

Also .... I think most of us would agree Sherlock has things to learn from John, yes? Such as the importance of friendship, the value of compassion, stuff like that. But again, what does John have to learn from Sherlock? Observational skills, perhaps? Surely something more meaningful than that, but I'm not sure what; John seemed a pretty whole person to begin with. Just curious to see what others think.

 

A pretty whole person? Are you kidding? John at the beginning of series 1 was a wreck! He had lost any kind of meaningful occupation, he was limping around feeling useless and old, and I am pretty sure he didn't just keep that gun in his drawer in case of burglars.

 

John is an extremely interesting character. First of all, they had a lot less to go on when they created him. Dr Watson might be the narrator of the original stories, but they tell the reader very little about him as a person. It's all about Sherlock Holmes. Some of the information about the doctor is even contradictory. So as with Lestrade and other minor characters, they had to create their own person around his name - based on no more than clues and subtext in the original, and a lot of what the actor had to offer, I bet.

 

I have never seen John as a particularly good or healthy person (mind or body). He's certainly not "Mr Cuddly Jumper", not to me, at least. Sure, he has, as Sherlock puts it, "strong moral principles", but that's not the same as having a genuinely good heart (in fact, it can be compensation for the lack of a genuinely good heart - those who don't know how to act right by instinct have all the more need for a moral code). I don't think Sherlock would necessarily become so much closer to becoming a "good man" by imitating him. But by caring about him - sure! I think the way their friendship has played out for the first two series, Sherlock provided John with a second "battlefield" to replace the one he had to leave, and so made his life meaningful again. He also made John more human - because Sherlock was so "out of it" where compassion and feelings of any kind were concerned, suddenly John was in the position of the "good, normal" guy - where something tells me he hadn't been much before. Plus, like John "believes in Sherlock Holmes", Sherlock really believes in John Watson, the Good Man Who Keeps him Right - not a bad ideal to try and live up to.

 

They both seem to have a very specific (and glorified) idea about what the other man is like. Series 3 was a lot about what Sherlock is really like, and what he would like to be like, and so on. The same can be said for John. John at the beginning of series 3 had carefully constructed himself a new identity. He had a steady job, a home of his own, a fiancée, a mustache. He'd finally settled down and adjusted to civilian life. And then Sherlock came back and suddenly it was proven that he's still the same old John, and that he still needs the thrill of adventure, and civilian life is boring the heck out of him, and on top of it all it turns out he's gone and married an ex-assassin who is still willing to become not-so-ex if need be, instead of the good kind nurse he thought. Tough luck, buddy.

 

So in a nutshell, I think in series 3, Sherlock isn't sure who he is and John wants to be someone else.

 

 

We know several facts about Sherlock by now -- we've met his brother and his parents, and heard a bit of their history.  We know that he attended a university, plays the violin, has a history of drug use, and had known Greg Lestrade for five years as of "Study in Pink."  And there are probably more items that I'm not thinking of just now.

 

But what about John?  He's a doctor and was in the army in Afghanistan.  We know a little about his sister.  I think that's about it.  We haven't met the sister -- she wasn't even at John's wedding!  We know absolutely nothing about their parents, not even whether they're still living.  Oh, wait a minute -- we know that John played the clarinet in school!

 

I would love to find out more about John's history, and I would really like it for Harry to appear. Just briefly would be okay. But I'm very curious about her.

 

I see Freeman and Abbington overlaid on John and Mary every once in a while, and I think it's a case where "nepotism" really works in the show's favor.  They have that easy bodily comfort with one another that you get after more than a decade of domestic partnership.

 

I know next to nothing about the actors outside their roles, but they sure do have incredible chemistry as John and Mary, who should definitely come across as "meant to be", especially to make the shock in His Last Vow work, and boy, do they ever.

 

Does John really have trust issues, though?  What in the show had indicated these trust issues other than what his therapist wrote?  He trusts Sherlock fairly quickly, and moves in with him even though he knows very little about him.  I think John definitely has anger issues and other residual issues from the war, but I've never seen John as an untrusting person based on what we see from him in the show.

 

Well, he seems to either trust people completely or not at all. He comes across as a very private person, too, especially where emotions are concerned, and you could argue that a person who will not show you what he feels does not really trust you - in which case, I guess John only really trusted Sherlock's gravestone.

[sherlockandjohn]

...

 

John is an extremely interesting character. First of all, they had a lot less to go on when they created him. Dr Watson might be the narrator of the original stories, but they tell the reader very little about him as a person. It's all about Sherlock Holmes. Some of the information about the doctor is even contradictory. So as with Lestrade and other minor characters, they had to create their own person around his name - based on no more than clues and subtext in the original, and a lot of what the actor had to offer, I bet.

 

I have never seen John as a particularly good or healthy person (mind or body). He's certainly not "Mr Cuddly Jumper", not to me, at least. Sure, he has, as Sherlock puts it, "strong moral principles", but that's not the same as having a genuinely good heart (in fact, it can be compensation for the lack of a genuinely good heart - those who don't know how to act right by instinct have all the more need for a moral code). I don't think Sherlock would necessarily become so much closer to becoming a "good man" by imitating him. But by caring about him - sure! I think the way their friendship has played out for the first two series, Sherlock provided John with a second "battlefield" to replace the one he had to leave, and so made his life meaningful again. He also made John more human - because Sherlock was so "out of it" where compassion and feelings of any kind were concerned, suddenly John was in the position of the "good, normal" guy - where something tells me he hadn't been much before. Plus, like John "believes in Sherlock Holmes", Sherlock really believes in John Watson, the Good Man Who Keeps him Right - not a bad ideal to try and live up to.

 

They both seem to have a very specific (and glorified) idea about what the other man is like. Series 3 was a lot about what Sherlock is really like, and what he would like to be like, and so on. The same can be said for John. John at the beginning of series 3 had carefully constructed himself a new identity. He had a steady job, a home of his own, a fiancée, a mustache. He'd finally settled down and adjusted to civilian life. And then Sherlock came back and suddenly it was proven that he's still the same old John, and that he still needs the thrill of adventure, and civilian life is boring the heck out of him, and on top of it all it turns out he's gone and married an ex-assassin who is still willing to become not-so-ex if need be, instead of the good kind nurse he thought. Tough luck, buddy.

 

So in a nutshell, I think in series 3, Sherlock isn't sure who he is and John wants to be someone else.

 

Interesting analysis, and it puts some things into perspective for me, like when John one minute is all but begging Sherlock to tell him about the Magnussen case, and the next moment he is upset that Sherlock takes for granted that he will come along. Okay, no one wants to be taken for granted, but I think - and have always thought - there was more to it. John really wants to be a "normal" guy with a normal life, and he thought Mary offered him that. He knew, for sure, that Sherlock did not. So he goes to Sherlock to provide him with the thrill he needs, but he also needs Mary to keep him grounded. And now he's faced with the fact that he's not the kind of person he wants to consider himself being. When Sherlock points it out in the Baker Street confrontation scene, it must have really hurt. It obviously did.

 

In light of that, I wonder if he has just accepted who he is now, or if he will still struggle with it in series 4.

 

That being said, I do feel John's need for dangerous people was exaggerated in His last Vow. He hated Moriarty and certainly did not like Irene. And I don't know if I'd call Mrs. Hudson dangerous, just because she was exotic dancing and had married a drug dealer unwittingly. Certainly she is not quite "normal", but dangerous...? Hm.

 

[Boton]

 

 

I know next to nothing about the actors outside their roles, but they sure do have incredible chemistry as John and Mary, who should definitely come across as "meant to be", especially to make the shock in His Last Vow work, and boy, do they ever.

 

This is a good point, because the viewer really has to believe that John has found his perfect wife (as perfect as humans can get, anyway).  We need to believe that John fits with Mary to make the point of John being so attracted to danger that he would marry an assassin.  Conversely, we need Mary to be so comfortable in her new role as John's wife that we have some touch point to help us believe she'd do anything to keep that relationship from being destroyed, and that includes pulling out her only problem-solving set in the form of returning to her CIA/freelance roots.

 

 

 

That being said, I do feel John's need for dangerous people was exaggerated in His last Vow. He hated Moriarty and certainly did not like Irene. And I don't know if I'd call Mrs. Hudson dangerous, just because she was exotic dancing and had married a drug dealer unwittingly. Certainly she is not quite "normal", but dangerous...? Hm.

 

I'm not sure I agree about whether he liked or disliked Irene, but I agree that the point was a bit exaggerated.  After all, it's not like he took one look at Mrs. Hudson and knew her past.  I guess the point is that John didn't flinch when Sherlock said (in SiP) that he had ensured Mr. Hudson's execution for double murder.  That would have given me pause.

 

Do we have a situation from a story-telling perspective that John needs a more developed motivation for being with Sherlock than perhaps has ever been given in the canon or previous movies?  That our John needs to have independent reasons for liking the crime-solving lifestyle rather than just an assumption that every Holmes needs his Watson?

[sherlockandjohn]

 

 

 

That being said, I do feel John's need for dangerous people was exaggerated in His last Vow. He hated Moriarty and certainly did not like Irene. And I don't know if I'd call Mrs. Hudson dangerous, just because she was exotic dancing and had married a drug dealer unwittingly. Certainly she is not quite "normal", but dangerous...? Hm.

 

I'm not sure I agree about whether he liked or disliked Irene, but I agree that the point was a bit exaggerated.  After all, it's not like he took one look at Mrs. Hudson and knew her past.  I guess the point is that John didn't flinch when Sherlock said (in SiP) that he had ensured Mr. Hudson's execution for double murder.  That would have given me pause.

 

Good point, and well noticed! In retrospect, I keep thinking I should have seen it coming.. John falling for an ex-assasin. Like Sherlock says, "Is it truly such a surprise?" Well, yes, it was, but I get the point.

As for John liking Irene... I suppose it was mostly her treatment of Sherlock that repulsed him.

 

 

[Boton]

The thought occurs that there is another example of how well TSoT sets up HLV and how thematically they are linked.  I have this developing theory that TSoT is about normal, everyday fears and transitions:  getting married, having a baby, being the "official" best friend in the form of being best man, fear of abandonment when your friend "moves on," petty jealousy when you realize you weren't your best friend's first/only best friend ("Well, neither of us were the first.").  These are all things that most of us experience from one side or the other. 

 

Then, you get the big, explosive version of these fears in HLV:

• Sherlock's ability to "stand up" for John as his best man becomes his willingness to kill and to forfeit his own life for him (and Mary).
• Mary's willingness to let her wedding be a new beginning (which most people would think of as letting past romances, etc., stay past) is actually hiding an entire dual life.
• John's perhaps-ambivalence about whether he really desires a quiet suburban life gets exploded when he realizes he has not surrounded himself with the makings of that life AT ALL.

Anyway.  Not terribly well-put, but I'm still working on that theory.  Must rewatch the pair of episodes back to back with this in mind. 

 

 

[Arcadia]

A pretty whole person? Are you kidding?

Well, no, I'm not. But in my mind it was  -- how do I put this? John had a career in the army and as a doctor; you don't get to be those things lightly or by accident. (Unlike Sherlock, who is winging it through life, imo.) Plus he seems to have a pretty good grip on the way the world works. (Again, unlike the rather impractical Sherlock.) So when I said "whole person to begin with" I was referring to the way he seems to me as a human being in general, not to his particular circumstances at the beginning of ASiP. If that makes sense.

 

Not that I saw him as a particularly shattered person in ASiP, either. He just struck me as someone at a crossroads ... temporarily. Eventually he would have found something else, I think, because he seems a steady kind of guy, willing to put up with a "normal, boring" life because that's what a grown up (again, not Sherlock! ) does to get along. It was just fate that the "something else" he found was Sherlock.

 

For the rest, I think you've got a pretty good insight into what might be going on. John's often kind, but he's also often ... I don't know. Indifferent? Self-absorbed? Overly repressed? Something's missing in his make up that keeps him from sainthood, at any rate. (Thank goodness).

 

Interesting analysis, and it puts some things into perspective for me, like when John one minute is all but begging Sherlock to tell him about the Magnussen case, and the next moment he is upset that Sherlock takes for granted that he will come along. Okay, no one wants to be taken for granted, but I think - and have always thought - there was more to it. John really wants to be a "normal" guy with a normal life, and he thought Mary offered him that. He knew, for sure, that Sherlock did not. So he goes to Sherlock to provide him with the thrill he needs, but he also needs Mary to keep him grounded. And now he's faced with the fact that he's not the kind of person he wants to consider himself being. When Sherlock points it out in the Baker Street confrontation scene, it must have really hurt. It obviously did.

And this is another interesting analysis! You have to really feel for John on so many levels in that scene.

 

In light of that, I wonder if he has just accepted who he is now, or if he will still struggle with it in series 4.

 

That being said, I do feel John's need for dangerous people was exaggerated in His last Vow. He hated Moriarty and certainly did not like Irene. And I don't know if I'd call Mrs. Hudson dangerous, just because she was exotic dancing and had married a drug dealer unwittingly. Certainly she is not quite "normal", but dangerous...? Hm.

I rather hope John continues to struggle with it, because this "addiction to danger" stuff is exaggerated, as you put it, to a rather preposterous degree, imo, and I'd like to see a little balance restored. In fact, I rather suspect this is yet another example of "Moftiss-speak"; when they say "dangerous," they mean what they usually mean when they misuse a word -- "different" (Different in an "exciting" way, of course!) But "different" is not very dramatic sounding, so we end up with "psychopath" and "sociopath" and "dangerous". And anyway, "dangerous" is sexy, y'know.  Perhaps we'll be seeing calendars with Martin Freeman in various seductive poses next.

[T.o.b.y]

 

That being said, I do feel John's need for dangerous people was exaggerated in His last Vow. He hated Moriarty and certainly did not like Irene. And I don't know if I'd call Mrs. Hudson dangerous, just because she was exotic dancing and had married a drug dealer unwittingly. Certainly she is not quite "normal", but dangerous...? Hm.

 

Well, just "dangerous" probably isn't enough to make John like someone. But I bet it's a kind of a bonus. "Extraordinary" would probably be a better word, anyway. "Exciting".

 

I think John's attraction to danger was pretty well established in the first episode, and it makes a lot of sense to me as well. I know people like that. And while I am completely the opposite myself, I have experienced that "deadly calm" which can overcome you in a critical situation, and it's a feeling I can easily imagine being addicted to. I also find it very believable that if you'd worked and survived as a doctor in a war zone, it would be extremely hard to settle down again to a mundane life, even if you would theoretically like nothing better.

 

 

Well, no, I'm not. But in my mind it was  -- how do I put this? John had a career in the army and as a doctor; you don't get to be those things lightly or by accident. (Unlike Sherlock, who is winging it through life, imo.) Plus he seems to have a pretty good grip on the way the world works. (Again, unlike the rather impractical Sherlock.) So when I said "whole person to begin with" I was referring to the way he seems to me as a human being in general, not to his particular circumstances at the beginning of ASiP. If that makes sense.

Not that I saw him as a particularly shattered person in ASiP, either. He just struck me as someone at a crossroads ... temporarily. Eventually he would have found something else, I think, because he seems a steady kind of guy, willing to put up with a "normal, boring" life because that's what a grown up (again, not Sherlock! ) does to get along. It was just fate that the "something else" he found was Sherlock.

 

Or he could have killed himself... no, I can't picture him really doing that. I do believe he considered it, though.

 

Yes, John would be willing to put up with a "normal, boring" life. But he's not able to do so. Look at series 3. The John we see at the beginning of The Empty Hearse is exactly the version of him that you describe above: He's settled. He's got an ordinary life with a tidy home, a steady job and a relationship. Theoretically, he should be really, really happy. And he thinks he is. But he's not. And not just because Sherlock is still dead. That happened two years ago. I love how irritated Sherlock is by that silly mustache, because it kind of sums up all that is wrong with John at that point in one line, so to speak. He's prematurely aged, and not himself. And then Sherlock is back, and by the end of the first ninety minutes, John looks the way we remember him again, and is blithely hopping around a dark underground network, looking for a bomb.

 

Again, at the beginning of His Last Vow, John should be super happy. He's married now, he still has that steady job and that lovely wife and that nice home, and now Sherlock is back and alive, so what could possibly be wrong? Yet there John is, having nightmares, snapping at a crying neighbor, restlessly cycling to work and keeping his shirts ready to pack. And why? Because he hasn't had anything really meaningful to do (in his eyes) since the wedding, and he's bored. If he were Sherlock, he'd have been shooting holes in the wall of their dining room (I bet he's briefly thought about that).

 

I think it's pretty well established that John needs Sherlock around, and not just because "every Holmes needs a Watson". More specifically, he needs the adventure that Sherlock provides. "A gun in my pocket and the thrill of adventure in my heart", is what Dr Watson joyfully notes in "The Empty House".

[Arcadia]

Oh, I don't know. I guess I think he's perfectly "able" to be "normal." It's just more fun to do weird stuff with Sherlock. Not everyone gets an opportunity like that, but John did, and he took advantage of it. But if Sherlock had never come back -- or if they had never met in the first place -- I think John would have continued to lead an ordinary doctor's life. He strikes me as someone who is adult enough -- or conventional enough -- to stick at a job even if it's not particularly "exciting". Now that he's got Sherlock back, though, heck, why not have some excitement too?

 

Again, though, "excitement" is not dramatic enough for Moftiss, might as well ramp it up into a psychopathic "need for danger".....   Poor John, doomed to a life of adventure!

[T.o.b.y]

Oh, I don't know. I guess I think he's perfectly "able" to be "normal." It's just more fun to do weird stuff with Sherlock. Not everyone gets an opportunity like that, but John did, and he took advantage of it. But if Sherlock had never come back -- or if they had never met in the first place -- I think John would have continued to lead an ordinary doctor's life. He strikes me as someone who is adult enough -- or conventional enough -- to stick at a job even if it's not particularly "exciting". Now that he's got Sherlock back, though, heck, why not have some excitement too?

 

That sounds reasonable enough, but it's not what I see on the show. I think they took quite some screen time hammering into our heads what an adrenaline junkie John is and how unfit for "ordinary life". And by the way, when we meet him in A Study in Pink, he has no thought of getting settled as a doctor. He's living on his pension and seeing a useless therapist (because he won't make use of her).

 

I think what you say is probably what John would say about himself. "I don't need this at all, I just do it because it's fun". And Sherlock (and I) would roll our eyes and go "yes, sure, John".

 

This is probably the point where we agree to disagree and smile at each other:

[Arcadia]

Okay.

[sherlockandjohn]

I'm probably somewhere in between, in that I am sure John is thrill-seeking, but not to the degree that he would unconsciously choose an assasin for a wife. It's not like he secretly wanted it, I believe. One might ask if John craved danger before he went to war (did he go to war, because he sought danger?) or if that craving was a consequence of him having been in a war. Sherlock seems to think the former. I wouldn't know. I have never spoken with any soldiers or ex-soldiers or army doctors. Probably they would give various reasons anyway, but in ASiP it was said that John missed the war - not that he was always thrill-seeking. But, to some degree, aren't we all? Not enough to live the life John is living, perhaps So I think he is 'abnormally attracted to dangerous situations'.

 

Think I just experienced a flash of realisation. It's not really John's attraction to danger that bothered me in His Last Vow, but it's the insinuation that his morals aren't as important as that need. That he would choose to marry an assasin, because he seeks danger - even if it is unconsciously done. Of course, it being done unwittingly, I can see why it doesn't exactly break his moral code.

 

I know John isn't perfect at all. He can be self-absorbed, for one, but he has always tried to protect and help those in need. For him to condone his wife's killings (and I don't think he does) would be heartbreaking.

[Arcadia]

They're playing around with moral codes quite a bit in HLV, aren't they? Mary, Sherlock, John ... they all do something that can be construed as a "bit not good". I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to take away from that, but it's an interesting development.

[T.o.b.y]

I'm probably somewhere in between, in that I am sure John is thrill-seeking, but not to the degree that he would unconsciously choose an assasin for a wife. It's not like he secretly wanted it, I believe. One might ask if John craved danger before he went to war (did he go to war, because he sought danger?) or if that craving was a consequence of him having been in a war. Sherlock seems to think the former. I wouldn't know. I have never spoken with any soldiers or ex-soldiers or army doctors. Probably they would give various reasons anyway, but in ASiP it was said that John missed the war - not that he was always thrill-seeking. But, to some degree, aren't we all? Not enough to live the life John is living, perhaps So I think he is 'abnormally attracted to dangerous situations'.

 

Think I just experienced a flash of realisation. It's not really John's attraction to danger that bothered me in His Last Vow, but it's the insinuation that his morals aren't as important as that need. That he would choose to marry an assasin, because he seeks danger - even if it is unconsciously done. Of course, it being done unwittingly, I can see why it doesn't exactly break his moral code.

 

I know John isn't perfect at all. He can be self-absorbed, for one, but he has always tried to protect and help those in need. For him to condone his wife's killings (and I don't think he does) would be heartbreaking.

 

I don't think he does either. John seems genuinely shocked at the revelations about her past, and he chose to not read the files on the memory stick, probably because Mary was right: He would be unable to continue loving her if he knew the details of what she had done. He does choose to willfully close his eyes to part of the truth, though. Which I think is kind of okay, because none of Mary's victims will come back to life if he confronts the stories behind their deaths, nor if he dumps Mary.

 

Neither do I think he chose her because he somehow subconsciously knew she was an assassin, specifically. But he seems to have intuitively responded to something in her, to the fact that she was extraordinary, had lived and thrived outside the confines of safe suburban life. Who else could have come even close to understanding him enough to want to marry him? If you had gone to war, worked in "Barts bloody hospital" and watched your best friend kill himself by jumping off a roof in front of your very eyes, wouldn't you feel kind of at a loss with a partner whose most exciting experience to date was a shoe sale?

 

It does seem to me, though, as if John was a lot more upset by Mary lying to him (or rather, hiding the truth from him) than any of the, from our point of view, weightier matters, like her former occupation or her near-fatal attack on Sherlock. I don't mind that. But then, the idea of "John the good guy" has never been terribly important to me. Besides, he's killed people for a living, too - who is he to judge?

 

They're playing around with moral codes quite a bit in HLV, aren't they? Mary, Sherlock, John ... they all do something that can be construed as a "bit not good". I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to take away from that, but it's an interesting development.

 

Yes, very. I'm still waiting to find out what Mary's particular take on good, not so good and bad might be. At the moment, I think she's very, very hard to figure out.

[sittything]

I think one of the things that draws me to this show is how well developed the characters are;  how complex they are and you can't easily categorize them as either hero or villain.  In fact, I'm not sure that if these were "good" people as Lestrade said, that they would be able to mentally cope with the dark underside of the world that they do.  I don't really have a problem with John and Mary as a couple.  Sure she's an assassin/ex-CIA, but we're also talking about John who killed a man to save Sherlock in the first episode.  These are morally grey people.

 

I love this bit between Sherlock and John:

 

John: You. What have I ever done, hmm? My whole life... to deserve you?
Sherlock: Everything.
John: Sherlock, I've told you, shut up.
Sherlock: No, I mean it. Seriously. Everything, everything you've ever done is what you did.
John: Sherlock, one more word and you will not need morphine.
Sherlock: You were a doctor who went to war. You're a man who couldn't stay in the suburbs for more than a month without storming a crack den, beating up a junkie. Your best friend is a sociopath who solves crimes as an alternative to getting high. That's me by the way, hello. Even the landlady used to run a drug cartel.
Mrs. Hudson: It was my husband's cartel, I was just typing.
Sherlock: And exotic dancing.
Mrs. Hudson: Sherlock Holmes, if you've been Youtubing...
Sherlock: John, you are addicted to a certain lifestyle. You're abnormally attracted to dangerous situations and people. So is it truly such a surprise that the woman you've fallen in love with conforms to that pattern?
John: But she wasn't supposed to be like that. Why is she like that?
Sherlock: Because you chose her.

 

The biggest thing I've had difficulty wrapping my head around is Mary shooting Sherlock.  I've decided that I'm willfully going to believe that she didn't mean to kill him.  That what she did attempt was surgery, and maybe she was just a bit off in her shot and nearly killed him.  I think if that explanation is good enough for Sherlock, it's good enough for me (I think).

 

 

[Arcadia]

One thing that has always puzzled me: a doctor who goes to war does not a warrior make. Generally doctors go to war to heal, just like doctors who don't. They're not attracted to the killing, they're attracted to the chance to make a real difference and save lives. I'm not even sure they're trained to use weapons (does anyone know? I suppose they may have some rudimentary training but I'd be surprised if it's more than that.)

 

Obviously John could be an exception, but in real life, I don't think someone who's more interested in warrior aspect of war would make a good doctor. And John says he's a very good doctor.

 

Also: I assume John was on the front lines (or why else was he in a position to get shot?) Frontline doctors are more likely to be in emergency medicine than general practice. So why is John now dispensing pills in an office? Get thee to a job in the emergency room, man, that's where your skill set is! Yeesh. (Or does Britain not have emergency rooms? Or perhaps highly qualified emergency docs are so plentiful that there's no jobs available?)

 

Finally, if he was out in the field with the soldiers, wouldn't he be a medic, not a doctor? Perhaps it's different in the British Army, but in the American one, you don't risk your highly trained docs in the firing zone. That's what the medics are for.

 

It's all very confusing to me.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

Also: I assume John was on the front lines (or why else was he in a position to get shot?) Frontline doctors are more likely to be in emergency medicine than general practice. So why is John now dispensing pills in an office? Get thee to a job in the emergency room, man, that's where your skill set is!

 

Hey, another thing I hadn't thought of! That's interesting. John should be where there's more "action" if he is so thrill-seeking. Why does he settle for a job, he apparently thinks is a bit boring, when he could easily work in a place that provides him with more challenges and life/death situations?

 

I suppose the easy answer is that he wouldn't be as inclined to go with Sherlock on cases. We couldn't have that, now, could we?!

[sherlockandjohn]

I think one of the things that draws me to this show is how well developed the characters are;  how complex they are and you can't easily categorize them as either hero or villain.  In fact, I'm not sure that if these were "good" people as Lestrade said, that they would be able to mentally cope with the dark underside of the world that they do.  I don't really have a problem with John and Mary as a couple.  Sure she's an assassin/ex-CIA, but we're also talking about John who killed a man to save Sherlock in the first episode.  These are morally grey people.

 

I love this bit between Sherlock and John:

 

John: You. What have I ever done, hmm? My whole life... to deserve you?

Sherlock: Everything.

John: Sherlock, I've told you, shut up.

Sherlock: No, I mean it. Seriously. Everything, everything you've ever done is what you did.

John: Sherlock, one more word and you will not need morphine.

Sherlock: You were a doctor who went to war. You're a man who couldn't stay in the suburbs for more than a month without storming a crack den, beating up a junkie. Your best friend is a sociopath who solves crimes as an alternative to getting high. That's me by the way, hello. Even the landlady used to run a drug cartel.

Mrs. Hudson: It was my husband's cartel, I was just typing.

Sherlock: And exotic dancing.

Mrs. Hudson: Sherlock Holmes, if you've been Youtubing...

Sherlock: John, you are addicted to a certain lifestyle. You're abnormally attracted to dangerous situations and people. So is it truly such a surprise that the woman you've fallen in love with conforms to that pattern?

John: But she wasn't supposed to be like that. Why is she like that?

Sherlock: Because you chose her.

 

The biggest thing I've had difficulty wrapping my head around is Mary shooting Sherlock.  I've decided that I'm willfully going to believe that she didn't mean to kill him.  That what she did attempt was surgery, and maybe she was just a bit off in her shot and nearly killed him.  I think if that explanation is good enough for Sherlock, it's good enough for me (I think).

 

I am really impressed (though not necessarily in agreement) with the above scene, and, in fact, with the entire Baker St. confrontation. How is it that Sherlock suddenly is so insightful? With regard to human psychology, no less. He seems to know just what to say to get John to listen. They've really made Sherlock a hero in several ways in His Last Vow. A flawed hero, for sure, but definitely a hero, despite his own claims not to be.

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

I am really impressed (though not necessarily in agreement) with the above scene, and, in fact, with the entire Baker St. confrontation. How is it that Sherlock suddenly is so insightful? With regard to human psychology, no less. He seems to know just what to say to get John to listen.

 

Oh I don't know, first of all, Sherlock has always known a lot about people. It just seems that most of the time, he can't be bothered to put that into practice, unless he wants something from them, when the knowledge comes in handy (see Molly, for example). Secondly, this is John. Sherlock knows John pretty well, and he understood him from the first. I mean, he knew just what to do to get him off his cane, and also to make him say "I forgive you".

 

 

[sherlockandjohn]

 

 

I am really impressed (though not necessarily in agreement) with the above scene, and, in fact, with the entire Baker St. confrontation. How is it that Sherlock suddenly is so insightful? With regard to human psychology, no less. He seems to know just what to say to get John to listen.

 

Oh I don't know, first of all, Sherlock has always known a lot about people. It just seems that most of the time, he can't be bothered to put that into practice, unless he wants something from them, when the knowledge comes in handy (see Molly, for example). Secondly, this is John. Sherlock knows John pretty well, and he understood him from the first. I mean, he knew just what to do to get him off his cane, and also to make him say "I forgive you".

 

 

That's a good point. I'm reminded of the scene from The Great Game, when Sherlock pretends to be an old friend of Ian Monkford, and he says afterwards, "People love to contradict you." He really does know how to play someone's strings... Yet he is not really in tune with people's emotions. He may know in theory what to do, and it may even work in practice, but he is mostly disengaged or unempathic. What seems different to me in the Baker Street confrontation scene, is that he is talking to John on a more personal level. But as you say, he knows John, so that could be the explanation. It still surprised me, but didn't feel out of place... just a bit amazing.