John Watson

[T.o.b.y]

And yet he wants Sherlock to beg for forgiveness. And people say he's Sherlock's moral compass, a fluffy man with a big heart. Ok-kay… :P

Actually I like John less and less as the show progresses.

 

I like John just fine, he reminds me very much of my dead grandfather. But fluffy? Nope. John is anything but fluffy. He might have a big heart but there's a good sized layer of protective coating and prickles around it.

 

Don't know if he wants Sherlock to beg for forgiveness so much as to actually understand why what he did was wrong. Sherlock did plenty of theatrical apologizing but how genuine was it? I doubt he had a real clue what his fake suicide had done to John until after Mary died.

 

"Taking your life... it's not you who will miss it". To me, that's Sherlock finally getting it. Too bad John wasn't around to hear.

 

[J.P.]

Oh, gosh, yes! You have a point here - the strong reaction that Sherlock shows toward E. shows that he finally understood the impact his own "suicide" had on John. But you have to admit - it's a bit… obscured.

[gerry]

VBS, I didn't have time for further debate about Sherlock earlier this week because work has been soooo busy. :( I think the crux of our disagreement in lies in how we see Sherlock. I find him far more selfish and narcissistic than you do.

 

It happens that Mrs.Hudson, Lestrade and John were exactly the enemies had their eyes on, and their lives could still be in danger because they most probably still kept them in watch. The enemies didn't consider the rest to be valuable leverages for Sherlock so it makes sense if he wanted to keep it that way, like maintaining the perception that he was not that close with his parents.

This explanation would work for the initial period after the "death" but not for the entire 2 year period. Also, I don't care how not close to your parents people think you are, most people would go to their child's funeral.

 

It's said Sherlock finally managed to dissolve the network after two years, and that's the time he needs to keep them in the dark. I understand it's too much of the spy story recipe, but it's not totally made up either. I'd think that if Sherlock dropped John a hint, a single hint, he could put everything in jeopardy.

How could John put anything in jeopardy when he didn't even know where Sherlock was? Mycroft has the Mi6 resources to keep tabs on Sherlock, not John. I'd imagine Mycroft could have kept John in the loop without arousing suspicion. I'd also imagine that John could have stayed out of it if Mycroft and Sherlock had told him what was going on.

 

Sherlock didn't understand how hurtful it was in the beginning. I defend his reason to do so, but I agree he has trouble getting the impact of what he did. But that is what makes me sympathize with him. He didn't value himself that highly to be missed and mourned that much.

Sherlock was there at his grave site when Mrs. Hudson and John were there giving their respects. Sherlock said he heard what John said so how could he not know how painful it was for John? I also don't think SHerlock's self esteem is so low that he doesn't know he's loved. In fact I don't think Sherlock has low self esteem.

 

To me, his attitude in the train and everything he did to make up to John, were his messy ways of trying. He didn't know better. I once said I'd do the same with him in the train, trying to use humor to make it less awkward, because how else I don't know?

Given John's reaction, he didn't find it any more funny than I did. Personally, I took his attitude as Sherlock thinking he faked his death, it's over and he's back now, he apologized, so it's time to move on and get back to normal. This is why I didn't see accountability from him. He didn't fully understand why he had to apologize. He apologized more because John was angry and he wanted JOhn to stop being angry so they could solve crimes.

 

Then apparently it's not? That many of you say that John is still angry about TEH, and that contributes to TLD.

Personally, I don't think John is still angry about TEH in TLD. It was more about his anger with Sherlock about being careless about the people around him and the effect that has. In this case, Mary was the collateral damage.

 

No he didn't know yet, but he knew at least at that point the girl was still alive, meant there was hope for her. But that also meant that Eurus was still dragging and continuing to torture him to make difficult decisions. And I guess he was very upset that she managed to get what pushed his button. I don't think at that moment the game was even important to him anymore, it's not the type he wanted to play. We see how different he was with that girl and the kid in TGG. It's not fun anymore.

I agree it was not the game he wanted to play but I think it's because he knew all along he was the lab rat. He hated that he could be manipulated. He's usually the manipulator and in control of the situation. He didn't see it coming that Molly wasn't actually in danger and that he didn't save her at all. The shoe was finally on the other foot. It wasn't until the next room that he finally began to take more control and he realized he could beat Eurus by not playing her game according to her rules which immediately put in Eurus on the defensive.

 

It certainly contributed to his anger, but mostly I also think that he also knew this time he really f*up Molly's feelings. It's not the usual banter and ambiguity anymore. And I also think Sherlock still doesn't know how he feel, I suppose at the same time beside worry for Molly, he faced the strange unknown territory because he realized that he actually cares about Molly that much.

When I first saw that scene that was the interpretation I had but when I saw the episode again and in light of what's been shown about their friendship before I just don't believe it anymore. I mean just look at Sherlock's attitude towards Molly in TLD. He rarely treats her with respect so I have a hard time believing he has those kind of feelings for her (they'd have to be very very very hidden) or that he'd have so much empathy for her feelings that he'd be upset about it. Also, what does it say about SHerlock that he could accept her friendship (like risking her career to help him with his fake suicide) but not think of her enough to know how she feels and whether he does?

 

It seems like sometimes they are undecided in regarding us as 'too dumb' or 'too smart' audience.

They'd rather believe we're too dumb not to get their brilliant plots but they don't want us to find the plot holes because then we'd know they're not as clever as they think they are.

[Carol the Dabbler]

How could John put anything in jeopardy when he didn't even know where Sherlock was?

He couldn't have let it slip where Sherlock was, no, but he would almost certainly have made his watchers suspicious that Sherlock was still alive somewhere.  And if they'd suspected he was alive, they'd have looked for him in earnest, and quite likely have found him.

 

What it all boils down to is, John is a lousy liar (bless his honest heart!).  Besides, it's canonical.  In "The Empty House," Holmes tells Watson: "I had only one confidant—my brother Mycroft. I owe you many apologies, my dear Watson, but it was all-important that it should be thought I was dead, and it is quite certain that you would not have written so convincing an account of my unhappy end had you not yourself thought that it was true. Several times during the last three years I have taken up my pen to write to you, but always I feared lest your affectionate regard for me should tempt you to some indiscretion which would betray my secret."

[Pseudonym]

 

So as suspected really. Why didn't they just cut the letter part of the scene out and have Molly say what she did? Completely pointless. I saw some previous speculation that maybe the letter was actually the waltz Sherlock wrote, which would have been pretty owchie. 

[Arcadia]

 

How could John put anything in jeopardy when he didn't even know where Sherlock was?

He couldn't have let it slip where Sherlock was, no, but he would almost certainly have made his watchers suspicious that Sherlock was still alive somewhere.  And if they'd suspected he was alive, they'd have looked for him in earnest, and quite likely have found him.

 

What it all boils down to is, John is a lousy liar (bless his honest heart!).  Besides, it's canonical.  In "The Empty House," Holmes tells Watson: "I had only one confidant—my brother Mycroft. I owe you many apologies, my dear Watson, but it was all-important that it should be thought I was dead, and it is quite certain that you would not have written so convincing an account of my unhappy end had you not yourself thought that it was true. Several times during the last three years I have taken up my pen to write to you, but always I feared lest your affectionate regard for me should tempt you to some indiscretion which would betray my secret."

 

That's always been my take on it ... harsh as it seems to a modern audience, John is supposed to be a hopelessly poor liar and could not be trusted to keep the secret that Sherlock was still alive. What was at stake though, as I understand it, was not so much Sherlock's security as that of his friends ... if Moriarty's network had found out Sherlock was still alive, they could have used his friends against him again. 

 

My current theory about Sherlock and emotions is that it's not that he doesn't understand them, or why people have them ... he clearly does, as has been demonstrated many times over the course of the series. (Heck, he deduced John had a psychosomatic limp the minute he met him.) What I think he doesn't understand is why John, a reasonably sensible and intelligent man, can't shake off his emotions as easily as Sherlock does. Look how much angst he could have spared himself if he could! (Sherlock thinks.) Why, it's only logical to put his hurt feelings aside! :D

 

Add to that, you could say Sherlock thought he was doing what John wanted when he came back into his life. "I asked you not to be dead." "I heard you." See, John, I did what you asked, why aren't you happy! (They really do act like a married couple sometimes, don't they? :d)

 

And of course Sherlock has self-esteem problems. He has a smarter older brother who constantly reminds him what a screw up he is. Sherlock even says it himself: "What utility do I have?"

 

I wonder if we are supposed to think Sherlock has finally gotten over that after TFP, when he realizes how badly Mycroft has handled the Eurus situation. "She's very clever." "I'm beginning to think you're not."

[Arcadia]

 

... I guess he was very upset that she managed to get what pushed his button. I don't think at that moment the game was even important to him anymore, it's not the type he wanted to play. We see how different he was with that girl and the kid in TGG. It's not fun anymore.

I agree it was not the game he wanted to play but I think it's because he knew all along he was the lab rat. He hated that he could be manipulated. He's usually the manipulator and in control of the situation. He didn't see it coming that Molly wasn't actually in danger and that he didn't save her at all. The shoe was finally on the other foot. It wasn't until the next room that he finally began to take more control and he realized he could beat Eurus by not playing her game according to her rules which immediately put in Eurus on the defensive.

 

Exactly. And because he didn't realize she was never in danger, he embarrassed and humiliated her by making her say "I love you." To him, the man who can't (or won't) return her love. That's what he was upset about; he hurt her again, he knows he's done it before, he doesn't want to do it now, he feels the shame a decent man feels when he hurts a woman. He doesn't have to be "in love" with her to react that way.

 

 

It seems like sometimes they are undecided in regarding us as 'too dumb' or 'too smart' audience.

They'd rather believe we're too dumb not to get their brilliant plots but they don't want us to find the plot holes because then we'd know they're not as clever as they think they are.

 

 

​Wow.

I have to admit, if I had as poor opinion of someone as you do of Moftiss, I wouldn't trouble to watch their show.

 

 

So as suspected really. Why didn't they just cut the letter part of the scene out and have Molly say what she did? Completely pointless. I saw some previous speculation that maybe the letter was actually the waltz Sherlock wrote, which would have been pretty owchie.

Maybe it was. That certainly would have sent the "f*** off" message.

 

I don't think I agree it was pointless. To me, it's obvious that's what was in the letter (why else show that scene?), I don't need to see what's in it. And I don't think Sherlock had to read it to know what was in it, either. But I'm trying to imagine if Molly had just said what she did, without the letter to drive home the point, and I don't think it would have had the same impact. It needed to be conveyed directly from John to Sherlock to carry the full weight of John's rejection, imo. A letter formalized the rift. Sort of like handing someone their severance papers, instead of just having the personnel clerk tell them they've been fired.

 

To be honest, I think they could've dropped Molly's line instead and gotten the result they wanted. But they needed someone to say the word "anyone." Maybe there would have been a more elegant way to do it, though.

[Pseudonym]

I see your point, I just find it weird the letter was never mentioned again. We don't see Sherlock reading it, John never mentions it, we don't know what exactly was in it. If what was in it was exactly what Molly said doubling up seems redundant. 

 

I'm always happy with show don't tell and leaving things to the viewers to mull over and work out, but I just find in their season there's not enough show or tell, too much left to supposition.

 

This is a bit of a garbled thought, but playing with the idea of Watson as an unreliable narrator, ie Moftiss' comment that the Milverton case didn't happen the way Watson wrote, I wish they had done an 'unreliable narrator' episode. I suppose TAB might fit that to an extent, but I'd have loved seeing Sherlock solve a case where we're not quite sure if what we are being told is trustworthy until the end. I'm a sucker for those kind of things. Part of the reason Fight Club is my favourite film. 

[Arcadia]

I see your point, I just find it weird the letter was never mentioned again. We don't see Sherlock reading it, John never mentions it, we don't know what exactly was in it. If what was in it was exactly what Molly said doubling up seems redundant. 

 

I'm always happy with show don't tell and leaving things to the viewers to mull over and work out, but I just find in their season there's not enough show or tell, too much left to supposition.

I won't argue with you there, I'm the one who maintains TFP should have been 2 hours long! I agree they seem to have tried to cram too much into the one season, and the little moments that might have made the series more ... whatever ... got crammed out.

 

This is a bit of a garbled thought, but playing with the idea of Watson as an unreliable narrator, ie Moftiss' comment that the Milverton case didn't happen the way Watson wrote, I wish they had done an 'unreliable narrator' episode. I suppose TAB might fit that to an extent, but I'd have loved seeing Sherlock solve a case where we're not quite sure if what we are being told is trustworthy until the end. I'm a sucker for those kind of things. Part of the reason Fight Club is my favourite film.

I feel that way through most of TRF! But I'm not sure if I'm supposed to feel that way, or if I just can't keep up.

 

I rather thought TLD was like that. Especially if you were John. Of course, John might not have believed Sherlock if he said the sun came up every morning, at that point.

[Carol the Dabbler]

 ... harsh as it seems to a modern audience, John is supposed to be a hopelessly poor liar and could not be trusted to keep the secret that Sherlock was still alive. What was at stake though, as I understand it, was not so much Sherlock's security as that of his friends ... if Moriarty's network had found out Sherlock was still alive, they could have used his friends against him again.

 

Oh, right.  They wouldn't have to find Sherlock, just threaten his friends to draw him out of hiding.  Much easier!

 

.... playing with the idea of Watson as an unreliable narrator, ie Moftiss' comment that the Milverton case didn't happen the way Watson wrote, I wish they had done an 'unreliable narrator' episode. I suppose TAB might fit that to an extent, but I'd have loved seeing Sherlock solve a case where we're not quite sure if what we are being told is trustworthy until the end.

I feel that way through most of TRF! But I'm not sure if I'm supposed to feel that way, or if I just can't keep up.

 

I rather thought TLD was like that. Especially if you were John. Of course, John might not have believed Sherlock if he said the sun came up every morning, at that point.

 

I'm fine with TRF and TLD, it's HLV and TFP that leave me feeling all what's-going-on???  (And if you explain, I'll just think yeah, but what's really going on?)

[Pseudonym]

Especially TFP, I've read metas talking about how it's a hallucination that almost make more sense than the actual episode itself.

[Arcadia]

Hey, if you can't figure them out, I sure can't!

 

I wonder if we all mean something different by unreliable narrator? I'm trying to think of an obvious example, but can't come up with one. Didn't see Fight Club.

[Pseudonym]

Mr Robot? Memento? I'm sure there are loads more but they are the ones that spring to mind. The Usual Suspects maybe - I can't remember that one all that well. I know I've read some great books that do it, but can't remember any of them now. 

[Arcadia]

Okay, found a list of Top Ten movies with unreliable narrators. Memento's on the list, but I've never seen it (why, I don't know, it sounds like the kind of movie I would like.)

 

I've only seen 3 of them: Gone Girl, The Usual Suspects, and Rashomon. The last one is not what I was thinking of, since you realize pretty early on that everyone simply has a different memory of the same thing. I can't remember a thing about The Usual Suspects except that I thought it was good but confusing. That leaves Gone Girl, and I guess that would fit my criteria ... what you think you're seeing gets flipped half way through. 

 

Aha ... A Beautiful Mind. Yeah, that would fit my definition too. Either of those fit yours?

[Pseudonym]

Gone Girl yes, I didn't like it much but Amy is definitely an unreliable narrator. I can't really remember enough about A Beautiful Mind. 

 

The way I see it is it needs to be narrated, either literally, or through an almost myopic view of a character's life/circumstances. You believe what the character is telling/showing you, because you have no reason not to, until little things stop making sense, and make you question if what you're seeing is what is actually happening. In the case of a literal narration, you discover the narrator is lying to you, either deliberately or through a lack of understanding of their own circumstances. And I love the way that can turn a story on it's head, make you question the entire narrative, and when it's done well I immediately want to rewatch and pick out all the little clues that pointed to what was really happening.

 

Not to harp on, but Mr Robot is really the best example I can think of. Without giving away spoilers; from the very beginning of the first episode Elliot, the main character, talks directly to the audience because he believes us to be one of the voices in his head. Because we are mainly in his head, if he's not aware of something neither are we. Sometimes he overtly lies to us, because he doesn't want to admit to something. Other times we see what he is thinking as an actual scene, only realising it's not by other character's reactions. There's a neat little trick they use - there's a big, bad conglomerate called E-Corp, that Elliot privately refers to as Evil Corp. He's the only one who calls it that, but because we are essentially in his head we hear all the other characters call it Evil Corp too, because that's the way Elliot hears it. From the start you know what Elliot is saying is not quite to be trusted, but you don't get the extent to which you've been lied to until about half way through the first season. I love that feeling of having the rug pulled out from under you. 

 

It's like in TAB when Sherlock says something along the lines of 'the virus in the program' and I remember thinking it was out of place in a Victorian setting, I started mulling over whether the term virus could have been a throwback and something that was used before computers to refer to problems in machinery. There was a feeling of a jolt, the creeping suspicion that things here are not quite what they seem.

 

I love direct first person narration in TV/moves, and first person POV books are definitely my favourites. But when that character is not only talking directly to you, but using it as an opportunity to mess with you, I love how subversive it can be. 

 

Is that how you see it? Or what you describe it differently?

[gerry]

Exactly. And because he didn't realize she was never in danger, he embarrassed and humiliated her by making her say "I love you." To him, the man who can't (or won't) return her love. That's what he was upset about; he hurt her again, he knows he's done it before, he doesn't want to do it now, he feels the shame a decent man feels when he hurts a woman. He doesn't have to be "in love" with her to react that way.

He embarrassed and humiliated her regardless of whether she was actually in danger. Being wrong about the danger part only proves that Eurus played him. When did I say that Sherlock had to be in love with Molly to be affected? VBS used the phrase cared that much. I said that I haven't seen anything shown in the show that would imply he does care about her enough to justify that interpretation. He hasn't been shown to give her much thought at all. It apparently works for you. It doesn't for me.

 

Wow.

I have to admit, if I had as poor opinion of someone as you do of Moftiss, I wouldn't trouble to watch their show.

Why? You don't have to know anything about the creators to watch a tv show.

 

Did Gatiss not say that if Sherlock was too complicated for viewers to understand to go read children's books? Does that scream respect for the intelligence of the audience? Also, how often have they been defensive when challenged about what's in or not in the show? Moffat was quite defensive about lack of ILY follow up very recently. If you don't like what I say about Moftiss, don't read my posts.

 

He couldn't have let it slip where Sherlock was, no, but he would almost certainly have made his watchers suspicious that Sherlock was still alive somewhere. And if they'd suspected he was alive, they'd have looked for him in earnest, and quite likely have found him.

I appreciate you detailing it's part of canon but I'm still not following how he could make people suspicious Sherlock was alive from a distance? I still stand by what I said from John's perspective. Couldn't the same argument be made for Sherlock's parents and Molly and they all knew?

 

And of course Sherlock has self-esteem problems. He has a smarter older brother who constantly reminds him what a screw up he is. Sherlock even says it himself: "What utility do I have?"

Ribbing from a sibling doesn't always lead to low self esteem. By that logic because Sherlock makes fun of Mycroft's eating/diet/weight, Mycroft also has low esteem. I don't see him that way either. Sherlock's level of arrogance and joy in showing off and making other people feel stupid don't convey low self esteem.

[Arcadia]

Gone Girl yes, I didn't like it much but Amy is definitely an unreliable narrator. I can't really remember enough about A Beautiful Mind. 

 

The way I see it is it needs to be narrated, either literally, or through an almost myopic view of a character's life/circumstances. You believe what the character is telling/showing you, because you have no reason not to, until little things stop making sense, and make you question if what you're seeing is what is actually happening. In the case of a literal narration, you discover the narrator is lying to you, either deliberately or through a lack of understanding of their own circumstances. And I love the way that can turn a story on it's head, make you question the entire narrative, and when it's done well I immediately want to rewatch and pick out all the little clues that pointed to what was really happening.

 

Not to harp on, but Mr Robot is really the best example I can think of. Without giving away spoilers; from the very beginning of the first episode Elliot, the main character, talks directly to the audience because he believes us to be one of the voices in his head. Because we are mainly in his head, if he's not aware of something neither are we. Sometimes he overtly lies to us, because he doesn't want to admit to something. Other times we see what he is thinking as an actual scene, only realising it's not by other character's reactions. There's a neat little trick they use - there's a big, bad conglomerate called E-Corp, that Elliot privately refers to as Evil Corp. He's the only one who calls it that, but because we are essentially in his head we hear all the other characters call it Evil Corp too, because that's the way Elliot hears it. From the start you know what Elliot is saying is not quite to be trusted, but you don't get the extent to which you've been lied to until about half way through the first season. I love that feeling of having the rug pulled out from under you. 

 

It's like in TAB when Sherlock says something along the lines of 'the virus in the program' and I remember thinking it was out of place in a Victorian setting, I started mulling over whether the term virus could have been a throwback and something that was used before computers to refer to problems in machinery. There was a feeling of a jolt, the creeping suspicion that things here are not quite what they seem.

 

I love direct first person narration in TV/moves, and first person POV books are definitely my favourites. But when that character is not only talking directly to you, but using it as an opportunity to mess with you, I love how subversive it can be. 

 

Is that how you see it? Or what you describe it differently?

Pretty much, yes. From what I remember of A Beautiful Mind, you start out thinking he's involved in some sort of espionage, then suddenly find out it's all a paranoid fantasy.

 

I hadn't thought of TAB (I always forget TAB!) but yeh, it seems to me it fits in the category. And little bits and pieces throughout other episodes, I guess, like the lab scene in THOB, where John thinks he's seeing the Hound? I bet they're hard to write.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Especially TFP, I've read metas talking about how it's a hallucination that almost make more sense than the actual episode itself.

 

Sounds interesting.  Could you post a link or two?

 

Did Gatiss not say that if Sherlock was too complicated for viewers to understand to go read children's books? Does that scream respect for the intelligence of the audience?

 

He couldn't have let it slip where Sherlock was, no, but he would almost certainly have made his watchers suspicious that Sherlock was still alive somewhere. And if they'd suspected he was alive, they'd have looked for him in earnest, and quite likely have found him.

I appreciate you detailing it's part of canon but I'm still not following how he could make people suspicious Sherlock was alive from a distance? I still stand by what I said from John's perspective. Couldn't the same argument be made for Sherlock's parents and Molly and they all knew?

Regarding Gatiss's "kiddy book" comment, he wasn't the one who said the audience was having trouble understanding the episodes, it was a fan.  Admittedly his reply wasn't exactly diplomatic -- though I wonder if there might have been a twinkle in his eye that doesn't show up well in print.  I personally don't find his episodes hard to understand, it's that other fellow's episodes.  Maybe Gatiss is tired of taking the flak for stuff he didn't write?

 

As for Sherlock being alive and all, I'm not sure I understand your question, but will endeavor to answer it nonetheless.  What I think Sherlock thought was that if John truly believed that he (Sherlock) was dead, then he would of course act convincingly heartbroken, whereas if John was in on the secret, then try as he might to *act* heartbroken, it wouldn't fool the baddies because John is a lousy liar.  So then the baddies would suspect that Sherlock wasn't really dead, and would presumably test that hypothesis by, oh let's say, torturing John -- which would be not a good thing, regardless of whether John knew anything else and/or whether he kept his mouth shut or not.  And one of Sherlock's prime motivations was to keep John safe.  So he didn't tell John for his own good -- which is generally a crummy reason, but actually makes sense to me (though obviously not to John) in this case.

 

True, the same might be said of certain other people, but John is a particularly lousy liar, as we saw in TGG when he met with Mycroft ("Oh, he's investigating away!").  The baddies might have no reason to suspect Molly, and as someone apparently said already, Sherlock hadn't seemed all that close with his parents (e.g., after working and rooming with him all those years, John had never even met them).  The only people targeted by the baddies were John, Greg, and Mrs. H., and Sherlock apparently did not tell any of those three.

[Van Buren Supernova]

I would hug you right now, VBS, except I think you'd squeak and run away. :P

Too late! I've crossed the street. I can be chicken too. Mother of all chicken if I have to.

 

VBS, I didn't have time for further debate about Sherlock earlier this week because work has been soooo busy. :( I think the crux of our disagreement in lies in how we see Sherlock. I find him far more selfish and narcissistic than you do.

Don't worry about that. I find it a challenge to be here as often as I want to. Especially for long posts in good discussion. It takes me so long to type one post yet my grammars are still messed up most of the time.

Anyway, yah, we do view Sherlock very differently. I always view him as someone who constantly guarding himself, wearing a hard exterior yet he doesn't really understand/still learning about his own interior.

He is a genius, he is good at reading people, I don't deny that. But reading himself, no.

 

Now to why he needs to disappear for two years (or until he is ready to be back), what Carol and Arcadia said. But allow me to add more.

Reason why he only keeps it from the three people, I said mostly because the enemies think the rest don't count, and he wants to keep it that way. People he went to for help are Molly, Mycroft and Bakerstreet Irregulars. It's not coincidence he only goes to them.

 

The three people, yes, they can easily be used by enemies again to lure Sherlock back. He wouldn't stay still if they are in danger again because of him.

Why that long?

During the two years, Sherlock slowly dismantle Moriaty's webs. It doesn't happen all at once but bit by bit. Surely when it gets significant the enemies would try to trace all the threads that they have, and the more Sherlock is successful, the more they investigate and open up all threads. I'd say John is not less in danger the more time went by, if not more.

 

Sherlock fools John and probably everyone else he doesn't tell. But Moriarty's network is an established network. It's not a stretch if some people there have suspicion or entertaining the idea that the death is not real. They's watching, especially when their network started to crumble piece by piece mysteriously. I believe they have special eyes for Sherlock, he is Moriarty's arch enemy anyway, and the one who causes his death. What they need is a simple trigger.

 

They actually show this (in a way, I'm not sure they meant to but as long as I'm able to make that connection, it's good enough for me). They show in TEH about how Sherlock is monitoring criminal activities.

Ariane DeVere

SHERLOCK (voiceover): Sometimes it’s not a question of ‘Who?’; it’s a question of ‘Who Knows?’

(Somewhere in London a man in his twenties or thirties with a shaved head is sitting on a park bench eating a sandwich.)

SHERLOCK (voiceover): If this man cancels his papers ...

(Near the bench, a scruffily dressed and rather grubby woman – presumably one of Sherlock’s Homeless Network – takes photos of the man on her phone.)

SHERLOCK (voiceover): ... I need to know.

(Keeping a wary eye on the man, the woman sends her photos to Sherlock, and he pins one of them onto the wall.

Elsewhere, a woman with a dog on a lead walks through a street market.)

SHERLOCK (voiceover): If this woman leaves London without putting her dog into kennels, I need to know.

(Another homeless woman photographs the dog owner and texts it to Sherlock, who again pins the photo onto the wall. He continues sticking up pictures of people and adding crosses and other marks to the pictures and the map underneath.)

SHERLOCK (voiceover): There are certain people – they are markers. If they start to move, I’ll know something’s up – like rats deserting a sinking ship.

 

It's those little things that are needed to crumble big fat plans. And it's almost always the case. When one gets careless and predictable, that's the start of them going down. And good planners don't take any chances.

 

That is why undercover agents have to be in so deep, that is why crime organizations have multiple plans and they even deceive their own followers if they have to. That is why only a handful of people know the actual secret. That is how it should be, if you want the plan to work. That is why good chess players are not only thinking about their moves, but their opponent's multiple moves and how to counter those moves, and then how their opponents would respond to and how to counter it again.

I don't know how else to explain really, if you still find it hard to believe.

 

When I first saw that scene that was the interpretation I had but when I saw the episode again and in light of what's been shown about their friendship before I just don't believe it anymore. I mean just look at Sherlock's attitude towards Molly in TLD. He rarely treats her with respect so I have a hard time believing he has those kind of feelings for her (they'd have to be very very very hidden) or that he'd have so much empathy for her feelings that he'd be upset about it. Also, what does it say about SHerlock that he could accept her friendship (like risking her career to help him with his fake suicide) but not think of her enough to know how she feels and whether he does?

I believe we had discussed in length before about how Sherlock views Molly.

Yah, I believe it's very very very deep. I understand most of the things he does and to me, they make a lot of sense.

So like you said, it's most possible that we view Sherlock very differently and will never find middle ground. I see your views yes, but discussing about it also make me even more confident with mine, once I have the chance to think it through. Maybe you do too. I guess good character make us do that. But I still relate to Sherlock, more than any other TV character I have ever seen. (That probably means I am unpleasant person in real life, but hey, I don't deny it )

 

What it all boils down to is, John is a lousy liar (bless his honest heart!). Besides, it's canonical. In "The Empty House," Holmes tells Watson: "I had only one confidant—my brother Mycroft. I owe you many apologies, my dear Watson, but it was all-important that it should be thought I was dead, and it is quite certain that you would not have written so convincing an account of my unhappy end had you not yourself thought that it was true. Several times during the last three years I have taken up my pen to write to you, but always I feared lest your affectionate regard for me should tempt you to some indiscretion which would betray my secret."

I believe he says similar thing in The Dying Detective.

 

Personally, I want friends who can't lie, but I would want to spare them for the need to lie for me too, I don't want to break them. I want friends like Sherlock as well, who doesn't hesitate to go to extreme length to protect people he cares about and make cold hearted decisions. I think we'd get along well. If I need good old mushy loving relationship, I'd look for a Mrs.Hudson too. Heck, I want everyone. I want Mycroft to stop traffic

 

My current theory about Sherlock and emotions is that it's not that he doesn't understand them, or why people have them ... he clearly does, as has been demonstrated many times over the course of the series. (Heck, he deduced John had a psychosomatic limp the minute he met him.) What I think he doesn't understand is why John, a reasonably sensible and intelligent man, can't shake off his emotions as easily as Sherlock does. Look how much angst he could have spared himself if he could! (Sherlock thinks.) Why, it's only logical to put his hurt feelings aside! :D

 

Add to that, you could say Sherlock thought he was doing what John wanted when he came back into his life. "I asked you not to be dead." "I heard you." See, John, I did what you asked, why aren't you happy! (They really do act like a married couple sometimes, don't they? :d)

Yes, that's how I see it.

 

@self esteem

Too many quotes I lost count.

I don't think Sherlock doesn't realize that he is that lovable is low self esteem. It's more like disregard, careless, indifference, ignorant of his own well being and value, he failed to see the impacts that he has, at least on emotional level.

I strongly believe that he thinks John only misses the adventures with him than him as a friend, a person, someone who matters. And they confirm it in TEH. So imo, it's not low esteem.

 

Finally..! One hour plus just to reply this. The coffee shop owner starts to look at me funny. :p I'm slow as snail!

[Arcadia]

If it makes you feel any better, a post like that takes me about an hour too. Time well spent! :d

 

I like your point about self esteem ... it's often more like indifference to his fate, isn't it? Although I'm not sure but what those are just different sides to the same coin.

[Pseudonym]

 

Especially TFP, I've read metas talking about how it's a hallucination that almost make more sense than the actual episode itself.

 

Sounds interesting.  Could you post a link or two?

 

 

'Fraid not. I read them way back when TFP was pretty new out and I'm not great at navigating my way around Tumblr - God that place can be hard to understand, just the site, not to mention to people. From what I remember, the theory is that either John actually was shot at the end of TLD and dreamt all of TFP, or that it's Sherlock dreaming and he's actually still in the coma after being shot by Mary. Can't remember much of the reasoning though, if any of them pop up again I'll post a link. 

[J.P.]

Re unreliable narrator: Shutter Island. Really good example. I couldn't help but thinking about TFP during this one, btw.

[Arcadia]

Shutter Island was on the list of Top 10 "unreliable narrator" movies.
 
RE: the theory you mentioned, Pseud, I'm amazed, but I actually managed to come up with the name. It's called the EMP Theory, which confused me no end when I first encountered it, because there used to be an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) research station near here, and I'm going "EMPs and Sherlock??? wtf???"
 
Ahem. Anyway, it stands for Extended Mind Palace theory. I've glanced at it a few times and to me it's even more unfounded than TJLC, but hey. There seems to be several different versions, but the essence of it is: everything that happens after Sherlock gets shot by Mary takes place in his mind palace. Some people seem to have backed it up to everything after TRF is in his mind palace. The whole point of the theory (imo) is to wish away anything that gets in the way of TJLC (i.e., Mary's existence). But to be fair, I run screaming in the other direction every time I encounter it, so there may be more to it than that.
 
Bing delivered this as the top response. Brief overview on the landing page.
http://gosherlocked.tumblr.com/post/137622767856/emp-theory-or-the-extended-mind-palace-theory
 
And our "rival" forum has this. I haven't read any of it; those people scare me. Enter at your own risk. :D
http://sherlock.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=7023&p=1

[gerry]

Maybe Gatiss is tired of taking the flak for stuff he didn't write?

Maybe. Either way neither of them seem all that interested in being questioned about what they write. They seem more incredulous when the audience "doesn't get it". Moffat especially. In the news thread the recap from the fan regarding Moffat's defense of the Mary character is exhibit A.

 

As for Sherlock being alive and all, I'm not sure I understand your question, but will endeavor to answer it nonetheless. What I think Sherlock thought was that if John truly believed that he (Sherlock) was dead, then he would of course act convincingly heartbroken,...

This is my question. Unless the baddies are talking to John directly how would he be shown as heartbroken or not in those two years? JOhn's not exactly a crier so it's not going to be puffy eyes or something. He still goes to a therapist before and after the "death" and in those two years he met Mary and fell in love with her so it's not like he stopped living because of his grief. I guess without Sherlock being around, I have a hard time picturing how John would have to act much of anything.

 

The only people targeted by the baddies were John, Greg, and Mrs. H., and Sherlock apparently did not tell any of those three.

Ironically, Mrs. H has been shown as a great liar even in distress. For Greg they haven't really shown one way or another but generally cops can lie quite easily, especially to suspects.

[gerry]

 

When I first saw that scene that was the interpretation I had but when I saw the episode again and in light of what's been shown about their friendship before I just don't believe it anymore. I mean just look at Sherlock's attitude towards Molly in TLD. He rarely treats her with respect so I have a hard time believing he has those kind of feelings for her (they'd have to be very very very hidden) or that he'd have so much empathy for her feelings that he'd be upset about it. Also, what does it say about SHerlock that he could accept her friendship (like risking her career to help him with his fake suicide) but not think of her enough to know how she feels and whether he does?

I believe we had discussed in length before about how Sherlock views Molly. Yah, I believe it's very very very deep. I understand most of the things he does and to me, they make a lot of sense.

Yes and in that discussion no one could really provide examples of what has happened onscreen in the show that would support this very deep feeling even though you see it as obvious. The vast majority is inferred somehow but if you actually go by how he treats and talks to her directly, it's not obvious.

 

@self esteem

Too many quotes I lost count.

I don't think Sherlock doesn't realize that he is that lovable is low self esteem. It's more like disregard, careless, indifference, ignorant of his own well being and value, he failed to see the impacts that he has, at least on emotional level.

I strongly believe that he thinks John only misses the adventures with him than him as a friend, a person, someone who matters. And they confirm it in TEH. So imo, it's not low esteem.

How can Sherlock be in that much denial? John has repeatedly expressed the contrary, at Sherlock's gravesite and even at the end of TEH, Sherlock tricked Sherlock into John into confessing his feelings. I don't think Sherlock is that ignorant. I could buy denial wrt to Molly because he likely doesn't want anything to do with Molly's romantic feelings but there'd be no reason to not want John's friendship.