Moffat's "we've missed it" statement...

[Arcadia]

Well, I know we've been around this discussion a couple of times.  (But hey!  Hiatus!)  But I think you've got an interesting facet of the debate here.

 

I think what Moftiss likes (and certainly what I like) is the idea of Sherlock being in the grey area of lawfulness, justice, and morality.  I think a society cannot legislate just and moral behavior completely; any society that tried to have a law in place for every contingency of justice and morality would be totalitarian, even if it thought it was acting in everyone's best interest.

 

What captivates me about both CAM and the original Milverton is that both villains were acting within the law, but they were ruining people's lives by behaving immorally and unjustly.  It seems right for Sherlock Holmes to come in and restore justice by cleaning up this grey area at the margins.  And, by pardoning him, there is an official acknowledgement that he performed a service for society that the government could not. It doesn't excuse the moral ramifications of the act, but it moves the action more from the realm of vigilante justice into an act undertaken for the greater good.

Hey, that's what I said!! :P

 

Seriously, that resonates with me, I think we may be onto something here. Can I hire you as my post writer from now on? I'll come up with ideas and you make sense of.... hey, wait.

 

 

Are you saying that other facets of the debate were not interesting? I didn't have you riveted to the screen with my flawless and irrefutable arguments? You didn't retire for the evening basking in the glow of my undeniable wisdom????? Well.... pooh.

[Arcadia]

I still see it as Mofftiss choosing vigilante role for Sherlock Holmes,  rather than celebrating his reason, logic, brain power etc.  In other words, his smarts are not his super-power.  Mistake IMHO.  And puts the role in the comic book/superhero Marvel category. Shame.

 

If you're right, I agree. Maybe that's why I keep desperately searching for another interpretation that works for me.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe the point is that even very intelligent people who make careful plans can get blindsided, leaving them with crucial aims to accomplish, but no appropriate way to do it.

 

If I had no job and no money for groceries, but happened to fall between the cracks of welfare regulations, I would regretfully steal food to keep me and my cats alive. I might keep a running tab, intending to reimburse the store someday, but that intent would not make my theft either legal or moral.

 

Thus Mary shot Sherlock and Sherlock shot CAM. Not legal, not moral, but perhaps the best choices from what was actually possible, or at least what they could think of in the time available.

[Arcadia]

But would you commit murder to feed your cats?

 

I don't think this would bother me as much if I didn't have the nagging suspicion that I am meant to admire Sherlock's choice. (God bless Ben; at least he has made it clear he thinks Sherlock crossed a line. I cling to that. ) I don't; I'm disappointed in him. But that's okay; that's an interesting story too. But I don't get the feeling it's the one they're telling; I think Clavery's description may turn out to be very much closer to the mark. Well, we shall see. Someday. Maybe.

[Pseudonym]

I would for mine, could use the corpse to feed 'em.

 

Was that too grim a thing to admit?

[Arcadia]

Ewww. Remind me not to visit you. :P

 

Probably. But it was still funny. :d

[Pseudonym]

Aw, my perfect plan, foiled :(

[Arcadia]

[clavery111]

...another adolescent male fantasy brought to fruition based on childish hero worship/super hero paradigms

 

but who's complaining?  

[Inge l-w]

What you ladies are all forgetting is that shooting CAM is not just their warped version of what is in the story, but also a compacted Devil's Foot, where Sherlock sends the good naturalist on his way although he technically killed Tregennis, and Abbey Grange, where he institutes Dr Watson as judge and jury and pronounces a sentence of 'not guilty' on the enamoured young captain, completely dismissing due process. Killing many birds with one stone, the (officially) lying Mr Moffat?

[Arcadia]

...another adolescent male fantasy brought to fruition based on childish hero worship/super hero paradigms

 

but who's complaining?  

 

You and I, apparently. :p

 

[Boton]

 

Well, I know we've been around this discussion a couple of times.  (But hey!  Hiatus!)  But I think you've got an interesting facet of the debate here.

 

I think what Moftiss likes (and certainly what I like) is the idea of Sherlock being in the grey area of lawfulness, justice, and morality.  I think a society cannot legislate just and moral behavior completely; any society that tried to have a law in place for every contingency of justice and morality would be totalitarian, even if it thought it was acting in everyone's best interest.

 

What captivates me about both CAM and the original Milverton is that both villains were acting within the law, but they were ruining people's lives by behaving immorally and unjustly.  It seems right for Sherlock Holmes to come in and restore justice by cleaning up this grey area at the margins.  And, by pardoning him, there is an official acknowledgement that he performed a service for society that the government could not. It doesn't excuse the moral ramifications of the act, but it moves the action more from the realm of vigilante justice into an act undertaken for the greater good.

Hey, that's what I said!! :P

 

Seriously, that resonates with me, I think we may be onto something here. Can I hire you as my post writer from now on? I'll come up with ideas and you make sense of.... hey, wait.

 

 

Are you saying that other facets of the debate were not interesting? I didn't have you riveted to the screen with my flawless and irrefutable arguments? You didn't retire for the evening basking in the glow of my undeniable wisdom????? Well.... pooh.

 

 

Aw, thanks Arcadia!  And yes, I found the other facets of the debate absolutely riveting, and I sometimes save pertinent snippets of our interactions to read aloud before bed.   :D

 

No, seriously, just meant that there was no need to re-plow old ground, but this was an interesting nuance to the debate that I'm really glad you brought up.

 

Maybe the point is that even very intelligent people who make careful plans can get blindsided, leaving them with crucial aims to accomplish, but no appropriate way to do it.

 

If I had no job and no money for groceries, but happened to fall between the cracks of welfare regulations, I would regretfully steal food to keep me and my cats alive. I might keep a running tab, intending to reimburse the store someday, but that intent would not make my theft either legal or moral.

 

Thus Mary shot Sherlock and Sherlock shot CAM. Not legal, not moral, but perhaps the best choices from what was actually possible, or at least what they could think of in the time available.

 

^^^^THIS!!  

 

Just because Sherlock is smart doesn't mean that he can "intellect" his way out of every situation.  He can make mistakes, and he can get backed into a corner.  Asking someone intelligent to always be able to reason their way out of a situation is like asking someone strong to solve every problem with a fight.  It isn't possible, and it isn't realistic, even in the realm of fiction.

 

What you ladies are all forgetting is that shooting CAM is not just their warped version of what is in the story, but also a compacted Devil's Foot, where Sherlock sends the good naturalist on his way although he technically killed Tregennis, and Abbey Grange, where he institutes Dr Watson as judge and jury and pronounces a sentence of 'not guilty' on the enamoured young captain, completely dismissing due process. Killing many birds with one stone, the (officially) lying Mr Moffat?

 

Actually, no, I didn't forget.  I consider the Devil's Foot situation to be another example of Holmes acting for justice if not legality, which means I consider it backstory to give us insight into Sherlock's action with CAM.  So I agree.  Sort of.  Except I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean it as a canon-compliance compliment to Moftiss.   ;)

[Arcadia]

Aw, thanks Arcadia!  And yes, I found the other facets of the debate absolutely riveting, and I sometimes save pertinent snippets of our interactions to read aloud before bed.   :D

 

And rightly so. I assume you sleep well at night. You're welcome. :P

 

Did CAM receive justice? Yeah, sure, why not, I can buy that.

[T.o.b.y]

Am I a bad person for having always loved Holmes for how he handled the case in The Devil's Foot? In fact, in the stories, whenever he decided to let the criminal go, I felt that he was right. I was always comfortable with him making decisions about right and wrong. (The Mr Holmes of Doyle's world has a much stronger moral compass than our Sherlock does, if you ask me, though). Come to think of it, my second favorite detective, Mr Marlowe, is the same way. Of course in his universe, the police and judicial system are corrupt and rotten.

 

I guess I am (frightfully?) ready to accept my heroes' authority on pretty serious matters. That's why they are heroes. In fact, I'd define a hero as a person whom I consider qualified to decide matters of life and death. Now, Sherlock says he isn't one. And in real life, there aren't any either, not that I know of. But in fiction, yeah, there they exist, and I like that, and I like fiction, and to me, Sherlock is a hero in spite of himself and as such, he can kill Magnussen, who is a villain, i.e. a Person That It Is Okay to Kill, another kind of being that does not exist in real life, either.

[Pseudonym]

Am I a bad person for having always loved Holmes for how he handled the case in The Devil's Foot? In fact, in the stories, whenever he decided to let the criminal go, I felt that he was right. I was always comfortable with him making decisions about right and wrong. (The Mr Holmes of Doyle's world has a much stronger moral compass than our Sherlock does, if you ask me, though). 

 

Maybe he's just too young and he'll evolve into that. 

 

I'm fine with his shooting Magnussen, I don't know why it just really doesn't bother me, and I think it will be addressed rather than him becoming a Bond/superhero character. That's not what he's about, it won't turn into that. 

[clavery111]

<<<<<...reminding you of the Batman in the moonlight scene from The Gay Pilot episode.....>>>>>

[T.o.b.y]

<<<<<...reminding you of the Batman in the moonlight scene from The Gay Pilot episode.....>>>>>

 

:lol:

 

The pilot irritates me, because I don't do well with two versions of one story within the same universe, it destroys my illusion that said universe is real and makes me feel uncomfortable. But aside from that, I think if they had stuck with that first version and it had been my introduction to the series, I would have gotten hooked all the same. It has a certain charm. And those actors are great, no matter what script you give them to work with.

 

[Arcadia]

Am I a bad person for having always loved Holmes for how he handled the case in The Devil's Foot?

Hardly, imo. I have no problem with mercy, forgiveness, compassion, clemency, etc. etc. And I would agree those are heroic qualities. If I had more time to think about it, I might even argue that we all have a right to exercise those qualities, not just heroes.

 

But all of those are a little different than deciding to end someone's life against his will. Does any human have that right? Well, obviously I don't think so, but I recognize that mine is an unpopular p.o.v. I'm not so committed to it that I insist it's the "only" correct way to believe, either. (But I'll defend to the death my right to stand up for it! :D )

[Arcadia]

 

<<<<<...reminding you of the Batman in the moonlight scene from The Gay Pilot episode.....>>>>>

 

:lol:

 

The pilot irritates me, because I don't do well with two versions of one story within the same universe, it destroys my illusion that said universe is real and makes me feel uncomfortable. But aside from that, I think if they had stuck with that first version and it had been my introduction to the series, I would have gotten hooked all the same. It has a certain charm. And those actors are great, no matter what script you give them to work with.

 

 

 

I love the pilot! But I know what you mean.

 

It's interesting to wonder what would have happened if they'd stuck with the original version of the show, isn't it? I think you're right, I think the magic between the actors would still be there. I also think the show would have ended years ago, before I ever got a chance to see it. (I'm still waiting for PBS to pick up Jonathan Strange.... not holding my breath.)

 

[T.o.b.y]

It's interesting to wonder what would have happened if they'd stuck with the original version of the show, isn't it?

 

I am not quite sure what the original version was supposed to be like. That's what I consider the greatest problem with the pilot, it seems kind of undecided. They hadn't really found their stride yet.

 

The "Batman" part was a bit campy, but in a good way (I don't mind camp anyway, as long as it is what I would consider well done). Then other parts seemed more gritty and realistic than the finished version turned out. And Sherlock was so, SO young. Not just in age, but in looks and behavior. So unlike Sherlock Holmes.

 

Then there was the cabbie... Ugh, he was so very, very creepy. I feel like they went back to that with Magnussen and it's interesting to me that they cut out the scene where he visits Sherlock in hospital. Someone on the production team seems to have a fan-fiction-like taste for making our hero a helpless victim of vaguely sexual predatory behavior, and someone else apparently has enough taste to tell them nope, for which I am truly grateful.

 

 

[Inge l-w]

Sorry to burst your bubble, Pseudonym, but it seems to be turning into Bond: guns flaunted and occasionally used, limousines blowing up, what more could a Bond fan like Mr Moftiss need to send his Sherlock puppet in that direction? And dear Boton is correct, in my original comment about The Devil's Foot and The Abbey Grange, because they involved (in Sherlock Holmes's mind) justifiable homicide, I didn't mean it as a tribute to the current scriptwriter: in fact, he gives me the creeps in all his appearances, much like Charles Augustus Milverton: a slythering, slimy snake in the grass, lying in wait for its prey: namely, the fans, whom he loses no time in deriding for being blind fools, etc. etc. etc. , as the King of Siam would have said.

[Pseudonym]

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. 

[jadpdr]

It does look like they are veering towards a Bond adaptation, all firearms, brawn and muscle. Pity, really.

[clavery111]

Bondlock?

[Carol the Dabbler]

... Sherlock was so, SO young. Not just in age, but in looks and behavior. So unlike Sherlock Holmes.

 

If you haven't read Conan Doyle's Study in Scarlet, you might give it a try (especially the first few pages, where Watson meets Holmes). He seems even younger than in the pilot, and was apparently supposed to be in his twenties. So perhaps that's what Moftiss were aiming at.

 

As for the "vaguely sexual predatory behavior," some of Conan Doyle's villains strike me as campily melodramatic. Again, that may have been what they were aiming at, till they realized that it didn't translate well into a current-day setting.