Sherlock (the BBC character)

[Van Buren Supernova]

Does Mr.Holmes counts? I like it but not RDJ's.

 

I actually enjoy dark movies/TV but with justifiable plots, where it is necessary. I can't really stand 'sweet' movie.

 

And @Inge, not sure where you are coming from, I actually enjoy TFP.

 

 

@Sherlock, it's actually cute that he thinks Sherlock Holmes is suitable pirate name. He didn't use other name, right? Since his friend was using Redbeard, ordinary kid would try to think or other cool pirate names for himself.

[Mateos]

I'd add John Luther. When I saw "Luther" for the first time, I've noticed some similarities to "Sherlock" (my fiancee completely disagrees with me). He's not as brilliant as Sherlock and sometimes it's not explained how he concludes who the criminal is, which is quite annoying, but his way of solving the case is very Sherlock-like to me. But in general the series is great, too. 

[Pseudonym]

That's TV though, not film. But yea, I like Luther too. 

[T.o.b.y]

Okay, I've merged the two "Sherlock" character threads; resume the angst!

 

Thank you, Arcadia!

 

I don't have much angst to share, though. For me, Sherlock's character makes a lot of sense the way he was written and even though I know they didn't have series 4 in mind already when they wrote series 1, it all fits together well enough in universe to satisfy me.

 

The way I see it, this is basically what happened: Sherlock had great potential to be a very lonely child. Too ordinary and emotional for his brilliant siblings, too extraordinary for "normal" children. But through some stroke of good fortune, he made a friend, little Victor Trevor, and they were pirates together and the world was largely okay. Then his nutcase of a sister drowned Victor in a well and was taken off to an asylum. Sherlock, unable to bear the truth, rewrote the events in his mind, erasing Euros completely and turning her act of homicide into euthanasia performed on a dog that never existed.

 

After the double loss of a friend and a sister (and probably of trust in most grown-ups too, I mean, it doesn't seem like either his parents or the police did much that was helpful or that he had any kind of effective therapy), he decided that human relationships just weren't worth the pain. Emulating his brother Mycroft, who seemed more functional to him, he tried to become a creature of nothing but "pure, cold reason", which worked well enough on the surface.

 

For a while, he was (understandably) a mess, took a lot of drugs and made a lot of trouble for his family, probably claiming "boredom" was the reason. Mycroft and his parents indulged him a lot because (unlike him) they knew what he had been through and were afraid to lose him too the way they had lost Euros. Finally, he somehow got the idea to solve crimes for entertainment (and a living), fell in with Lestrade and Molly (or he might have known Molly from university, which is my head canon, but no matter) and found the flat in Baker Street.

 

Private Detective was a perfect fit for him because the occupation combined the use of his considerable powers of observation and deduction as well as the taste for adventure and (in the larger sense) romance that he had never quite shaken off with the rest of his childhood. Besides, maybe he felt, subconsciously, that if he solved enough mysteries concerning other people, he would somehow make up for his failure to solve his friend.

 

He was always lonely, though. I think Sherlock was probably really happiest when he was a little boy playing pirates with his best friend and when John showed up, he responded so well to him because running around London together having outrageous adventures somehow put him back there to a degree and made him feel more complete and more "right". That's my theory on why it doesn't matter during the later episodes whether John treats him particularly well or not or whether he actually any "good" as a friend; it doesn't matter. All that's needed is him being around so Sherlock can go back to being the little boy whose world was still mostly all right.

 

Since his emotional conflicts are about childhood relationships - loss of a playmate, trouble with family - it's also no wonder that the romantic / erotic side of things isn't of that much importance to Sherlock. He has much more basic steps to take before that ever could become a serious issue.

 

In the end, Sherlock really has made things right. He's solved Euros' puzzle, he's saved John where he couldn't save Victor and he can now grow into the good and great man we know from Doyle's stories. Whether romance will be the next step and if so with whom is open for debate, but honestly? Who cares. Not me. I am just happy that Sherlock is happy.

 

 

There. Are there any degrees available in amateur psychoanalysis of defenseless fictional characters? I think I could begin to qualify for one. :P

 

In all, it's quite a satisfying story to me. Now excuse me while I do my little happy dance because I actually got my wish with a TV series for once in my life: A timely ending that did not make me feel upset and left enough room for further speculation of all sorts.

 

[Arcadia]

Oh, Toby. Can I keep you? :D
 
That all makes sense to me, too, and I feel the same way about the ending. (It's what came in front of it that I wrestle with, sometimes, but hey. ) I'll join you in your happy dance.

[T.o.b.y]

Awwww. I love Calvin and Hobbes! (A cartoon, btw, that is also delightfully unapologetic about its misfit title character whose only real friend is imaginary).

[Doe]

 

Okay, I've merged the two "Sherlock" character threads; resume the angst!

 

Thank you, Arcadia!

 

I don't have much angst to share, though. For me, Sherlock's character makes a lot of sense the way he was written and even though I know they didn't have series 4 in mind already when they wrote series 1, it all fits together well enough in universe to satisfy me.

 

The way I see it, this is basically what happened: Sherlock had great potential to be a very lonely child. Too ordinary and emotional for his brilliant siblings, too extraordinary for "normal" children. But through some stroke of good fortune, he made a friend, little Victor Trevor, and they were pirates together and the world was largely okay. Then his nutcase of a sister drowned Victor in a well and was taken off to an asylum. Sherlock, unable to bear the truth, rewrote the events in his mind, erasing Euros completely and turning her act of homicide into euthanasia performed on a dog that never existed.

 

After the double loss of a friend and a sister (and probably of trust in most grown-ups too, I mean, it doesn't seem like either his parents or the police did much that was helpful or that he had any kind of effective therapy), he decided that human relationships just weren't worth the pain. Emulating his brother Mycroft, who seemed more functional to him, he tried to become a creature of nothing but "pure, cold reason", which worked well enough on the surface.

 

For a while, he was (understandably) a mess, took a lot of drugs and made a lot of trouble for his family, probably claiming "boredom" was the reason. Mycroft and his parents indulged him a lot because (unlike him) they knew what he had been through and were afraid to lose him too the way they had lost Euros. Finally, he somehow got the idea to solve crimes for entertainment (and a living), fell in with Lestrade and Molly (or he might have known Molly from university, which is my head canon, but no matter) and found the flat in Baker Street.

 

Private Detective was a perfect fit for him because the occupation combined the use of his considerable powers of observation and deduction as well as the taste for adventure and (in the larger sense) romance that he had never quite shaken off with the rest of his childhood. Besides, maybe he felt, subconsciously, that if he solved enough mysteries concerning other people, he would somehow make up for his failure to solve his friend.

 

He was always lonely, though. I think Sherlock was probably really happiest when he was a little boy playing pirates with his best friend and when John showed up, he responded so well to him because running around London together having outrageous adventures somehow put him back there to a degree and made him feel more complete and more "right". That's my theory on why it doesn't matter during the later episodes whether John treats him particularly well or not or whether he actually any "good" as a friend; it doesn't matter. All that's needed is him being around so Sherlock can go back to being the little boy whose world was still mostly all right.

 

Since his emotional conflicts are about childhood relationships - loss of a playmate, trouble with family - it's also no wonder that the romantic / erotic side of things isn't of that much importance to Sherlock. He has much more basic steps to take before that ever could become a serious issue.

 

In the end, Sherlock really has made things right. He's solved Euros' puzzle, he's saved John where he couldn't save Victor and he can now grow into the good and great man we know from Doyle's stories. Whether romance will be the next step and if so with whom is open for debate, but honestly? Who cares. Not me. I am just happy that Sherlock is happy.

 

 

There. Are there any degrees available in amateur psychoanalysis of defenseless fictional characters? I think I could begin to qualify for one. :P

 

In all, it's quite a satisfying story to me. Now excuse me while I do my little happy dance because I actually got my wish with a TV series for once in my life: A timely ending that did not make me feel upset and left enough room for further speculation of all sorts.

 

 

How nice you told. 

[Arcadia]

Awwww. I love Calvin and Hobbes! (A cartoon, btw, that is also delightfully unapologetic about its misfit title character whose only real friend is imaginary).

 

I know, one of the saddest days of my life was when Bill Watterson retired. :(

[Van Buren Supernova]

Awwww. I love Calvin and Hobbes! (A cartoon, btw, that is also delightfully unapologetic about its misfit title character whose only real friend is imaginary).

Oh, I never think of it that way (that he is a misfit), I always think he is just super creative.

 

Anyway, when we were kids, our toys came to life too. :P They had different personalities, intelligence and life aspirations. Even them had imaginary friends because we didn't have a lot of toys but needed to populate the kingdom. :D

[Carol the Dabbler]

... it's actually cute that he thinks Sherlock Holmes is suitable pirate name. He didn't use other name, right? Since his friend was using Redbeard, ordinary kid would try to think or other cool pirate names for himself.

If I'm remembering the actual show (rather than just making things up), somebody (Eurus, I suppose) said that Sherlock called himself Yellow Beard.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yup. Checking with Ariane DeVere's transcript of TFP, it's actually Sherlock who (after some prompting from Eurus) says, "We played pirates. I was Yellowbeard and he was ..... he was Redbeard.

[J.P.]

A nice meta about Sherlock's emotional core

http://ivyblossom.tumblr.com/post/158296086725/not-soldiers-today

[Inge l-w]

Thanks, J.P. , and I might say, as a Sherlockian, NOT a Moftiss groupie, that everything from the last five minutes of TLD to the entirety of TFP is so self-congratulatory derivative, overall upsetting and full of itself in introducing the mythical secret sister that it is hyperbolic and borders on hubris! People have been taking TFP apart, and apparently Moftiss even borrowed from Jane Eyre.

The sands of time will eventually cover up this gross indecency against a beloved fictional character, but both Messrs Moffat and Gatiss derailed the whole endeavour in HLV, and now simply compounded the felony. If there's any justice in the world, there will be no S5. As someone put it so very aptly, they have emptied their joint account of innovative and creative ideas as far as Sherlock is concerned.

It is also extremely upsetting to see their callow attempts at feminism, and their idea that if a woman is too bright she goes INSANE! Grow up, you Bond groupies!

Dear Carol, definitely Redbeard and Yellowbeard, although with that mop of curly hair, Blackbeard would have been more suitable.

[Arcadia]

A nice meta about Sherlock's emotional core

http://ivyblossom.tumblr.com/post/158296086725/not-soldiers-today

 

I love this. Thanks, JP.

[jadpdr]

Why we had to go through all the Sturm und Drang of TFP to end up with Lestrade declaring that after all Sherlock Holmes is not only a great man but also a good man, thus coming full circle from SiP, shall remain a mystery to me. I particularly disliked the obviously contrived plot devices, not to mention the plot holes : deeply dissatisfying as the possible final episode.

[J.P.]

I would like the scene better if Greg's line went like:

Policeman: He's a great man.

Greg: Yeah… and more than that.

 

It wouldn't feel so… forced, IMO

[Pseudonym]

Yep, I agree. It's a horribly shoe-horned in line as is. If they really had to say it, that way would have been a lot better. 

[Arcadia]

Ah, but he needed to say the exact words to complete the circle, imo. For me, it's not the line, it's the way they emphasize it, instead of letting Lestrade deliver it naturally to his flunkie, he looks like he's on a stage announcing it to the world.

[Pseudonym]

But the cheesiness of having him say it is cringey. Was it really that necessary? I'm glad I didn't go to the cinema to see episode 3, did anyone else go? 

[Arcadia]

Yeah, it was necessary to me, that's the moment I've been hoping to see since I first saw ASIP. Not done in that way, but I wanted to hear Lestrade say the words.

 

I bailed on the theater showing, glad I did. Would've been upset if I'd paid that much money for something I didn't think was worth it. It's like twice the normal price, it's insane. Glad I saw TAB in the theater, though.

[J.P.]

Oh, I think the fans would get the hint without spoonfeeding them, and the others don't count anyway. :P

[Pseudonym]

I doubt you'd even get it if you hadn't seen the first episode multiple times. 

[Arcadia]

Oh, yes, I would have. I construed it as a thematic moment right from the get go. THE thematic moment, if you ask me. I certainly can't think of any other line that fits the bill.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree.  While a hint is better than nothing, a formal acknowledgement is even better.

 

For example (as I've said before), in the novel of The Hobbit, when Bilbo stabs the last of the giant spiders with his anonymous little sword, the spider screams, "It stings!"  Whereupon Bilbo says to the sword, "I will give you a name, and I shall call you Sting."  That was one of my favorite moments and I was very much looking forward to seeing it in the movie.  (They even did a nice set-up for it in Rivendell.)

 

But in the movie, Bilbo just shrugs and says something like "Sting -- that's a good name."  That's hardly a time-saver, it's just turning a dignified little ceremony into a joke.  I felt cheated.

 

[Inge l-w]

That's good to know, dear Carol! The whole Sherlockian world must have felt cheated by TFP. It doesn't work even as a parody!