Is John's Friendship Making Sherlock a Better Man, Or...?

[Boton]

Interesting.  As I am decidedly NOT a genius, I would have never imagined that geniuses as a whole receive such a response from others.     What about Mycroft then?   He seems less... bothered by being told to piss off?  Less reactionary?  I'm not sure what the word is I'm looking for....   Anyhow, I have a few friends that I would speculate are of genius-level intelligence.  Now I want to ask them if they've ever felt that others respond to them in such a way that they feel they have to hide their intelligence.  If they've ever felt that way, they've never intimated it to me.  But maybe that is because I'm just a goldfish.   :P    

 

Well, remember that Mycroft, in both ACD canon and in Sherlock, chooses to "socialize" via the Diogenes Club, which is a place that not just discourages interaction but which actively forbids it.  I'd be willing to bet that Mycroft has learned that he will stand out at work because of his intelligence, and he's willing to be the oddball because he gets a bit of positive reinforcement for being able to do his job well and a lot of job satisfaction from seeing his successes.  (And if he does, good on him, because that often causes coworker problems for people of high IQ.)  And then he takes pains to live a life of isolation otherwise, partly because it's his personality, but partly to accommodate the pressures that come with his intelligence.  But that's just me projecting and making it head canon.

[Arcadia]

Mycroft: tougher hide and or simply learnt to mask his reactions better than Sherlock. Not surprising considering what he do for living.

 

Both, methinks. The one reinforces the other.

[HeroinOrHeroine]

I don't think Sherlock is any better of a person than he was before John. I think he's always had certain people that he cares about and is loyal to, and his friendship with John caused him to widen his circle a bit to include John and the people John cares about. It would be impossible to know whether victims matter any more to him post-John than before as we don't see any of Sherlock's escapades prior to meeting John.

 

Being a good or a bad person is an interesting concept; entirely subjective. I don't know that I've ever met a 'good' person by my standards - I'm certainly not one. Sherlock definitely wouldn't be one. I tend to think that the vast majority of people are just the sum of their experiences and are overall neither good nor bad.

[Arcadia]

Being a good or a bad person is an interesting concept; entirely subjective. I don't know that I've ever met a 'good' person by my standards - I'm certainly not one. Sherlock definitely wouldn't be one. I tend to think that the vast majority of people are just the sum of their experiences and are overall neither good nor bad.

Well said!

[Boswell]

Sherlock surrounds himself with the things and people that help him do the work he loves. To that end, John makes for a suitable companion because from the outset his reaction to Sherlock has a purely objective, logical basis - admiration for Sherlock's extraordinary powers and a willingness to see things from Sherlock's point of view.  John trusts not just Sherlock's abilities but also his motivations, and therefore does not question him. Genius needs an audience, and John provides an unquestioning audience whose appreciation Sherlock is confident of having gained, for life. As Doyle put it, John Watson "while not being luminous himself, is a conductor of light". John lets Sherlock be (most of the time) and thereby helps him to think. John doesn't scare off Sherlock like most other people do with their strong emotional reactions to Sherlock's (mostly innocent) words & actions, and in that sense they share a common unemotionality, to an extent (Sherlock of course takes it to a whole other level) Sherlock can be himself and speak his mind in front of John without fear of being seen as obnoxious or freakish. John acknowledges Sherlock's superiority without abasing himself in any way.

Which is why I don't like the scenes in the modern Sherlock where John tries to correct Sherlock's manners. Some of those feel artificial, such as the scene in the HoB where he tries to stop Sherlock from explaining his deductions to Henry Knight.  John wouldn't really see it as showing off, if anything the explanation of how he arrived at his conclusions would only make Sherlock seem less 'supernatural'.

[Boswell]

To Lestrade's point about hoping that Sherlock could "one day even be a good man", I fear that that will also be the day when he ceases to be a great man!

I say this because when Lestrade says "good" here he really means "nice", and niceness is not something Sherlock, in his right mind, would waste his time on unless he has a purpose to achieve by being nice (such as when he compliments Molly on her hair so she'll let him look at those bodies in the morgue). Sherlock has understood that niceness is a cosmetic thing that one can put on and take off per one's convenience, and the purity of his mind refuses to allow him any niceness when he can get away with his natural directness.

 

Sherlock's error is usually in trusting people to take his observations the right way and without letting emotions cloud their judgement. Oh and maybe also in not being able to take it himself when others aren't nice to him  ;)

 

 

[Boswell]

Interesting.  As I am decidedly NOT a genius, I would have never imagined that geniuses as a whole receive such a response from others.     What about Mycroft then?   He seems less... bothered by being told to piss off?  Less reactionary?  I'm not sure what the word is I'm looking for....   Anyhow, I have a few friends that I would speculate are of genius-level intelligence.  Now I want to ask them if they've ever felt that others respond to them in such a way that they feel they have to hide their intelligence.  If they've ever felt that way, they've never intimated it to me.  But maybe that is because I'm just a goldfish.   :P    

 

Mycroft's method of dealing with that is to always put himself in a position of power so that he is protected from "piss off" reactions. That is why he is Big Brother even to Sherlock; he has understood his own talents, understood how the world will react to him, and probably uses those very talents to put himself in positions of influence so that any reactions are tempered. That's where his superiority lies. 

Sherlock is too much in love with his own gifts and the work to which he applies them to really bother about his position vis-a-vis the rest of the world.  The world is under his microscope, and if he has a need then it is not for power but for understanding & appreciation from those around him, something he apparently didn't receive enough of as a child.

[Arcadia]

 

To Lestrade's point about hoping that Sherlock could "one day even be a good man", I fear that that will also be the day when he ceases to be a great man!

I say this because when Lestrade says "good" here he really means "nice", and niceness is not something Sherlock, in his right mind, would waste his time on unless he has a purpose to achieve by being nice (such as when he compliments Molly on her hair so she'll let him look at those bodies in the morgue). Sherlock has understood that niceness is a cosmetic thing that one can put on and take off per one's convenience, and the purity of his mind refuses to allow him any niceness when he can get away with his natural directness.

 

Sherlock's error is usually in trusting people to take his observations the right way and without letting emotions cloud their judgement. Oh and maybe also in not being able to take it himself when others aren't nice to him  ;)

 

Mmm, I think that's part of it, but maybe it's more than that? At the risk of oversimplifying, I have always thought what Lestrade meant by a "good man" is best described as a "selfless man". The Sherlock we meet in Pink is far from that! His "self" is so important to him it actually gets in the way of what he loves to do (Anderson won't work with him, Donovan doesn't trust him, most people tell him to "piss off".... ) His journey seems to be in the right direction, though, if that best man's speech is any indication.

 

Would elaborate but got to run...

[Shadow Dweller]

John's presence and his immediate acceptance of Sherlock's quirks plus his early show of loyalty give Sherlock sufficient incentive to alter his own behaviour to suit (most of) John's sensibilities.

[Boton]

This whole cultural focus on being a "good" person suddenly struck me as very interesting from a generational theory perspective.  At least in the U.S., we have the Millennial generation reaching adulthood as the former "trophy children." For those who haven't heard that term (I think it's an Americanism), it means that we currently have a tendency to give every child who participated in an activity a trophy so no one feels left out or has their feelings hurt by being told they're not the best.  

 

But what are we seeing emerge in our pop culture?  Granted that much of this is being written and produced by GenXers, but we have Lestrade saying that Sherlock Holmes is a great man but that the jury is still out on whether he will end up a good one.  We have Dr. Who literally asking his companion Clara about his previous incarnations, saying "Am I a good man?" We have the Avengers films putting superheroes and gods (like Thor) in the position to wonder if their behavior makes them good people.

 

What are we really doing here?  Do we have a culture that has so accepted everyone's foibles that now no one can be sure if they're "good" or not? Is the age-old struggle of good vs. evil losing its appeal if we can't define "good" in a way that people agree on?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

People, in general, have tried to redefine good based on atheistic, humanistic, and/or naturalistic beliefs that there is no higher supreme power (aka God) so we determine what is good or otherwise acceptable behavior. What would have been considered evil/bad 50 years ago might be considered acceptable or good now (i.e. music with parent advisory labels are cleaned up then put on the radio. Or a children's version of a song [aka kids singing a song that was obviously meant for teens and older]).

[Arcadia]

This whole cultural focus on being a "good" person suddenly struck me as very interesting from a generational theory perspective.  At least in the U.S., we have the Millennial generation reaching adulthood as the former "trophy children." For those who haven't heard that term (I think it's an Americanism), it means that we currently have a tendency to give every child who participated in an activity a trophy so no one feels left out or has their feelings hurt by being told they're not the best.  

 

But what are we seeing emerge in our pop culture?  Granted that much of this is being written and produced by GenXers, but we have Lestrade saying that Sherlock Holmes is a great man but that the jury is still out on whether he will end up a good one.  We have Dr. Who literally asking his companion Clara about his previous incarnations, saying "Am I a good man?" We have the Avengers films putting superheroes and gods (like Thor) in the position to wonder if their behavior makes them good people.

 

What are we really doing here?  Do we have a culture that has so accepted everyone's foibles that now no one can be sure if they're "good" or not? Is the age-old struggle of good vs. evil losing its appeal if we can't define "good" in a way that people agree on?

Nice questions!! To the last one: my gut response is that good vs. evil isn't losing it's appeal, we're just defining those terms less broadly than we used to. It actually makes good vs. evil more interesting, because the lines are more fluid than they used to be.

 

Although now that I say that, I realize the real heroes, for me, are often the ones that hold the line; that is, the ones that say "no, I will not do evil in the name of doing good." Those are getting harder to find, I think; I suspect because they are not considered "realistic." I don't exactly watch TV/movies for their realism, though..........

 

People, in general, have tried to redefine good based on atheistic, humanistic, and/or naturalistic beliefs that there is no higher supreme power (aka God) so we determine what is good or otherwise acceptable behavior. What would have been considered evil/bad 50 years ago might be considered acceptable or good now (i.e. music with parent advisory labels are cleaned up then put on the radio. Or a children's version of a song [aka kids singing a song that was obviously meant for teens and older]).

But even a belief in God doesn't alter that ... churches are now accepting things they once condemned, such as interracial marriage, or bare legs on women. I think our understanding of God's will changes, just like everything else. It's the way we're wired. Or the way He wired us, if you prefer.

[bedelia1984]

This is a really interesting discussion.

 

I have always thought of a good person as someone who deliberately strives to do the right thing, even when it is difficult. With Sherlock, in the beginning, I think it was definitely about the puzzles. A lot of good came from his work, but I don't think good was his primary aim. I still think his passion for solving crimes probably outweighs his desire to do good.

 

The one tricky issue is killing Magnussen, which I think may have been an example of him trying to do the right thing, despite very strong reasons not to. But maybe when Sherlock actually tries to be a good person, that's not his area, (because there is so much more than just logic at work is deciding if an action is ethical and fitting, and I think there are instincts needed to make those decisions that Sherlock may lack, coupled with a bot of a god- complex) and he should concentrate more on the crime solving, which generally has good results?

 

I do think John has helped to make him a better person, in the sense that he has helped him to develop and grow, to be considerate, and to do more things that could be considered 'good'. But then in HLV, the fact he will literally do anything to help John leads him to actions which don't have good consequences. Though I believe wholeheartedly he was doing what he thought the best thing was for John, which was probably just not the same as a good thing in general. So, where we leave Sherlock at the end of Season 3, he seems like someone who would rather be a loyal friend than a good person, if he has to choose. So, if you try to decide whether what he has done is good or not, you have to weigh what value is there in his protection of John and Mary (and arguably many others), versus the fact that he commits murder and endangers his life and future career, and all the people he could have saved/helped had he not done so. What others have said about a generational attitude to what is 'good' is very apt, as in a different era killing Magnussen would have been wholly acceptable to society, he likely would have been seen as a hero.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Although now that I say that, I realize the real heroes, for me, are often the ones that hold the line; that is, the ones that say "no, I will not do evil in the name of doing good." Those are getting harder to find, I think; I suspect because they are not considered "realistic."

It sounds like it should. Part of me agree with that, but mostly, and case to case basis, it's very diffcult to do a clean good deeds. Small things, more plausible. But when it involves bigger things that intertwine with people's wellfare, life and happiness, imho, its really not.

 

 

But maybe when Sherlock actually tries to be a good person, that's not his area, (because there is so much more than just logic at work is deciding if an action is ethical and fitting, and I think there are instincts needed to make those decisions that Sherlock may lack, coupled with a bot of a god- complex) and he should concentrate more on the crime solving, which generally has good results?

Well put.  I agree with that. Being good to normal standard might not be everyone area because people are different.

[Arcadia]

...

But what are we seeing emerge in our pop culture?  Granted that much of this is being written and produced by GenXers, but we have Lestrade saying that Sherlock Holmes is a great man but that the jury is still out on whether he will end up a good one.  We have Dr. Who literally asking his companion Clara about his previous incarnations, saying "Am I a good man?" We have the Avengers films putting superheroes and gods (like Thor) in the position to wonder if their behavior makes them good people.

 

What are we really doing here?  Do we have a culture that has so accepted everyone's foibles that now no one can be sure if they're "good" or not?....

Thinking on this some more .... maybe it's not that we've accepted "foibles" so much as realized every "hero" has them ... witness what's happening with Bill Cosby, for example. Simultaneously, we have the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" train of thought. I'm not sure I actually agree with BC on that one, but I get what he means by it; enough to see that good/evil is a more complex issue than I thought it was when I was a child. Maybe this is just another way of saying the same thing you are, though.

 

This is a really interesting discussion.

I know, this is one of my favorite subjects...

 

I have always thought of a good person as someone who deliberately strives to do the right thing, even when it is difficult. With Sherlock, in the beginning, I think it was definitely about the puzzles. A lot of good came from his work, but I don't think good was his primary aim. I still think his passion for solving crimes probably outweighs his desire to do good.

 

The one tricky issue is killing Magnussen, which I think may have been an example of him trying to do the right thing, despite very strong reasons not to. But maybe when Sherlock actually tries to be a good person, that's not his area, (because there is so much more than just logic at work is deciding if an action is ethical and fitting, and I think there are instincts needed to make those decisions that Sherlock may lack, coupled with a bot of a god- complex) and he should concentrate more on the crime solving, which generally has good results?

 

I do think John has helped to make him a better person, in the sense that he has helped him to develop and grow, to be considerate, and to do more things that could be considered 'good'. But then in HLV, the fact he will literally do anything to help John leads him to actions which don't have good consequences. Though I believe wholeheartedly he was doing what he thought the best thing was for John, which was probably just not the same as a good thing in general. So, where we leave Sherlock at the end of Season 3, he seems like someone who would rather be a loyal friend than a good person, if he has to choose. So, if you try to decide whether what he has done is good or not, you have to weigh what value is there in his protection of John and Mary (and arguably many others), versus the fact that he commits murder and endangers his life and future career, and all the people he could have saved/helped had he not done so. What others have said about a generational attitude to what is 'good' is very apt, as in a different era killing Magnussen would have been wholly acceptable to society, he likely would have been seen as a hero.

I'm puzzled by your last statement ... was there a time when shooting an unarmed man would have been considered a heroic action? That doesn't sound right to me, but I'm not exactly a student of the attitudes of previous generations. But that actually seems like a more contemporary attitude to me, exemplified by movies like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon -- any action is justified as long as you're on the "right" side. Although maybe it's always been that way and I just was too innocent to know.

 

 

Although now that I say that, I realize the real heroes, for me, are often the ones that hold the line; that is, the ones that say "no, I will not do evil in the name of doing good." Those are getting harder to find, I think; I suspect because they are not considered "realistic."

It sounds like it should. Part of me agree with that, but mostly, and case to case basis, it's very diffcult to do a clean good deeds. ...

 

Yeah, I know. The realist in me recognizes that. Sigh. I prefer my idealistic side, the world's a more tender place over there....... :/

[Van Buren Supernova]

Yeah, I know. The realist in me recognizes that. Sigh. I prefer my idealistic side, the world's a more tender place over there....... :/

Mine was euthanized long time ago, just a chunk of it is tied in straightjacket in the deep deep corner.

 

I still vote that stupidity with power is the most dangerous combination that screws up a lot.

So sometimes I think about a scenario, would the world be better place (yaiks, the term) if there were more Sherlock type (smarts, geniuses)? Decisions and actions would be made based on the ability to recognize various factors and logic, maybe lead to less errors that would jeopardize a lot of good things and end up in catasthrophic human stupidity?

But in the end of my self debate, I think the conclusion is no, it could be more disasterous because human are selfish and greedy. Imagine if the smarties use their ability to exercise things that beneficial to them only, and compensate others along the way. With brain power, mad scientists, maybe not.

 

So, the world needs more Johns. For all the Sherlocks out there who need to outsource their consciences. To make all Sherlocks better men.

And just for general kindness. Yes, more Johns.

[Arcadia]

I still vote that stupidity with power is the most dangerous combination that screws up a lot.

So sometimes I think about a scenario, would the world be better place (yaiks, the term) if there were more Sherlock type (smarts, geniuses)? Decisions and actions would be made based on the ability to recognize various factors and logic, maybe lead to less errors that would jeopardize a lot of good things and end up in catasthrophic human stupidity?

But in the end of my self debate, I think the conclusion is no, it could be more disasterous because human are selfish and greedy. Imagine if the smarties use their ability to exercise things that beneficial to them only, and compensate others along the way. With brain power, mad scientists, maybe not.

I think that's exactly the situation we have, don't you? Not all smart people are like that ... but too many for my taste.

 

So, the world needs more Johns. For all the Sherlocks out there who need to outsource their consciences. To make all Sherlocks better men.

And just for general kindness. Yes, more Johns.

Amen to that. Although I think it's interesting you chose a gif of John flirting with Sarah to illustrate your point!

[bedelia1984]

I'm puzzled by your last statement ... was there a time when shooting an unarmed man would have been considered a heroic action? 

 

 

I'm no history expert, but I think there have been some eras and societies where if an enemy threatens your family/ kin, where they even compromised their honour (as when Magnussen was taunting John), then it would be acceptable for a man to take violent revenge upon that man. As to being unarmed, I don't think that would always be classed as a reason to with-hold aggression. I think the kind of psychological torture/ infringement of personal dignity that Magnussen was guilty of, would have been perhaps more swiftly dealt with in a less modern and 'civil' society. That was an interesting aspect of Magnussen's character for me, a villain that was allowed to exist through the loopholes of contemporary society, where an evil that doesn't provably break any written laws cannot be punished. Whereas the rule of the jungle would have eliminated him quite swiftly.

[Shadow Dweller]

Well... that depends on with who people like Magnussen tangled with.

[Arcadia]

 

I'm puzzled by your last statement ... was there a time when shooting an unarmed man would have been considered a heroic action? 

 

 

I'm no history expert, but I think there have been some eras and societies where if an enemy threatens your family/ kin, where they even compromised their honour (as when Magnussen was taunting John), then it would be acceptable for a man to take violent revenge upon that man. As to being unarmed, I don't think that would always be classed as a reason to with-hold aggression. I think the kind of psychological torture/ infringement of personal dignity that Magnussen was guilty of, would have been perhaps more swiftly dealt with in a less modern and 'civil' society. That was an interesting aspect of Magnussen's character for me, a villain that was allowed to exist through the loopholes of contemporary society, where an evil that doesn't provably break any written laws cannot be punished. Whereas the rule of the jungle would have eliminated him quite swiftly.

 

Yes, those are good points. I don't think I was projecting far enough back, actually.

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

Amen to that. Although I think it's interesting you chose a gif of John flirting with Sarah to illustrate your point!

What? No. NOO!

I just picked the one with nice smile. Eu...you know what I meant..! Hmppphhh..

[T.o.b.y]

Wow, you guys got the most interesting discussion going here while I was away!

 

Mind if I chime in, even if it's kind of late?

 

This whole cultural focus on being a "good" person suddenly struck me as very interesting from a generational theory perspective.  At least in the U.S., we have the Millennial generation reaching adulthood as the former "trophy children." For those who haven't heard that term (I think it's an Americanism), it means that we currently have a tendency to give every child who participated in an activity a trophy so no one feels left out or has their feelings hurt by being told they're not the best.  

 

But what are we seeing emerge in our pop culture?  Granted that much of this is being written and produced by GenXers, but we have Lestrade saying that Sherlock Holmes is a great man but that the jury is still out on whether he will end up a good one.  We have Dr. Who literally asking his companion Clara about his previous incarnations, saying "Am I a good man?" We have the Avengers films putting superheroes and gods (like Thor) in the position to wonder if their behavior makes them good people.

 

What are we really doing here?  Do we have a culture that has so accepted everyone's foibles that now no one can be sure if they're "good" or not? Is the age-old struggle of good vs. evil losing its appeal if we can't define "good" in a way that people agree on?

 

No offense, but I think you're comparing apples and pears here. Achievement isn't the same as goodness. The "trophy children" thing is an attempt at reducing the competitive aspect of games. Valuing participation more than winning isn't necessarily a bad idea if you ask me... But I hate competing with people over anything anyway. I wish I was a trophy child. *Sigh*...

 

Anyway. Then you mentioned a trend of fictional heroes either questioning their own goodness or their story being told in a way that makes the audience wonder and asked whether it's become harder for us as viewers to agree on what exactly is "good". Whether it's harder or not than formerly I do not know, but again, I argue this is actually a positive development. Because:

 

I have never really liked the "good vs evil" thing. I think "evil" is an abstract idea that people often (mis)use to justify violence, hatred, even murder. If your enemy is "evil", you're a hero, after all, and the crimes you commit becomes exalted deeds in the name of goodness. When politicians talk about an "axis of evil" in the same breath as waging war, my stomach has a tendency to return it's contents.

 

Basically the only problem I have with Sherlock is that there are bad guys. Moriarty and Magnussen aren't characters, aren't humans, they are villains. More monsters than people, which is why Sherlock shooting Magnussen feels so right (to me). Interestingly enough, though, the series itself doesn't glorify Sherlock for the killing. He explicitly states "I am not a hero" before he pulls the trigger - have you ever seen a knight say that before he slays the dragon? Not me.

 

I do think it's a heroic deed in a way. But a dark, twisted one - it's Sherlock taking the role of the evildoer who fights fire with fire upon himself so that Mary does not have to add another corpse to her list, so that John can stay married to her and continue to love her. He sacrifices his own just barely blossoming goodness, his glimmer of humanity, his soul, one could say, so that the people he loves can remain good and human. And safe. On the side of the angels but not one of them - personally, I find that beautiful. And it rings true. It touches me, as a human being faced with tough choices every day, sometimes choices where there is no good option, much more than any St George or Superman ever could. Life isn't good / evil simple. Why should fiction be? I know fiction is a space that's meant to be better than life, and it often is, but for me to enjoy it, I still have to find it relevant to me in some way.

 

Although now that I say that, I realize the real heroes, for me, are often the ones that hold the line; that is, the ones that say "no, I will not do evil in the name of doing good." Those are getting harder to find, I think; I suspect because they are not considered "realistic." I don't exactly watch TV/movies for their realism, though..........

 

Me neither. But I like characters who are conflicted, and they don't always have to make the right choices. Also, sometimes there just isn't a clear case of good and evil. There just isn't. And sometimes, like in the case of Magnussen, evil breeds evil. Once they were all standing out there on the terrace, there was no good option left.

 

I have always thought of a good person as someone who deliberately strives to do the right thing, even when it is difficult. With Sherlock, in the beginning, I think it was definitely about the puzzles. A lot of good came from his work, but I don't think good was his primary aim. I still think his passion for solving crimes probably outweighs his desire to do good.

 

That's my impression as well. I like your definition of a "good person", but I think I'd add another condition: A "good" person is primarily motivated by love while a "bad" person is primarily motivated by hate and / or a cold selfishness, the results of which rarely satisfy the person on a deeper level. And I think that as the series progresses, the love thing becomes more and more a factor in Sherlock's life, while hate was never really his thing to begin with. So yeah, he is becoming a better man, and John is certainly a driving force there, though not so much through his "moral" influence as by simply being an object of affection and opening Sherlock's eyes to the affection he feels (against his and Mycroft's better judgment) for other people as well.

 

If we look at it this way, killing Magnussen is really a tricky incident, because the motivation behind it is a mixture of hatred and love.

[Arcadia]

Welcome back, Toby! I knew something was missing!

 

I've always loved the "good vs. evil" thing ... one of my favorite tropes! I like characters who wrestle with the difference, though, not the ones who automatically know they're "good" because they're "right." (Or is it "right" because they're "good?") Conflicted characters don't always end up making the choice I think they should, but that's part of what makes that kind of story appealing to me ... it challenges my own pre-conceived notions. They could use a good challenge every once in awhile...

[bedelia1984]

A "good" person is primarily motivated by love while a "bad" person is primarily motivated by hate and / or a cold selfishness, the results of which rarely satisfy the person on a deeper level. And I think that as the series progresses, the love thing becomes more and more a factor in Sherlock's life, while hate was never really his thing to begin with. So yeah, he is becoming a better man, and John is certainly a driving force there, though not so much through his "moral" influence as by simply being an object of affection and opening Sherlock's eyes to the affection he feels (against his and Mycroft's better judgment) for other people as well. 

 

I really like this, and it reminds of of early in their relationship when Sherlock told John that most people tell him to piss off. John was one of the first people anywhere to stick with Sherlock through the arrogance and and see the value underneath it. His patience and understanding opened up Sherlock's world to friendship and love, and have certainly changed him for the better, if only because now he has a deeper understanding of these concepts and has actually experienced them first hand as well. 

[Arcadia]

Just found this thread again. Soooo, in light of Season 4, what do you think of my question now? Should it be rephrased to ask if John has become a worse man?