Sherlock (the BBC character)

[Pseudonym]

"[…] it is her [Mary Morstan’s] legacy that they then live, it’s her saying, this is who you have to be, you have to go and consciously be Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Sherlock Holmes will now wear the silly hat because Mary liked it. It just felt right. She changed and illuminated the path of the show."

— Steven Moffat, Worldscreen

 

Please please don't have him wearing the hat if it ever comes back just because Mary liked it.   And it's not Mary's legacy that they become who they were in the books, that's like saying they were nothing before she came along and made them into a cohesive team. They more cohesive before her imo. 

[mishab]

How exactly has Mary changed and illuminated the show? Or whatever he said. Some one try to explain it to me please. John and Sherlock were already each other's best friends, solving crimes and annoying each other like they did in the books much before Mary walked in to their lives. How exactly did she turn them in to the Sherlock Holmes and John Watson we know about and love? Was John not willing to save and protect Sherlock before Mary? Was he not already a morally conscious man before Mary? Why does John have to be reduced for the sake of Mary? If this was the other way around, if Moffat had said Mary became the woman she is because of her husband, what a furore people would have made about it. I can understand how Mary's death would have changed Sherlock to be less arrogant like how he is in the books. But apart from that she does not take away much from Sherlock. But it's a whole different case when it comes to John. 

[Arcadia]

Was thinking about the MI6 scene again and notices something strange about the reception of it: Why the hell I was seeing Sherlock as acting out of character, while I was perfectly fine with the palace scene? The last was as ridiculous as the first. Sherlock, in a sheet, behaving like a tantrum-ing child and Mycroft spitting venom and trying not to strangle him in front of his peers.

Any thoughts on this?

 

You're right that there are similarities. Maybe the Twitter debacle and the fact he's just killed someone? It's an important meeting he should be treating seriously - it's his life on the line after all. In SIB he's been grabbed from his home against his will so I can understand him being deliberately childish. 

 

I'll go with this, plus it seemed to me he'd matured some after TRF.

 

"[…] it is her [Mary Morstan’s] legacy that they then live, it’s her saying, this is who you have to be, you have to go and consciously be Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Sherlock Holmes will now wear the silly hat because Mary liked it. It just felt right. She changed and illuminated the path of the show."

— Steven Moffat, Worldscreen

 

Please please don't have him wearing the hat if it ever comes back just because Mary liked it.   And it's not Mary's legacy that they become who they were in the books, that's like saying they were nothing before she came along and made them into a cohesive team. They more cohesive before her imo. 

 

How exactly has Mary changed and illuminated the show? Or whatever he said. Some one try to explain it to me please. John and Sherlock were already each other's best friends, solving crimes and annoying each other like they did in the books much before Mary walked in to their lives. How exactly did she turn them in to the Sherlock Holmes and John Watson we know about and love? Was John not willing to save and protect Sherlock before Mary? Was he not already a morally conscious man before Mary? Why does John have to be reduced for the sake of Mary? If this was the other way around, if Moffat had said Mary became the woman she is because of her husband, what a furore people would have made about it. I can understand how Mary's death would have changed Sherlock to be less arrogant like how he is in the books. But apart from that she does not take away much from Sherlock. But it's a whole different case when it comes to John. 

 

Ah, don't mind Steven, that's just his grandiose way of saying something simple. I have a strong feeling he's stung by the charges of misogynism that have been flung his way, especially since he appears to try so darn hard to write strong women. So since he's knocked off a female character, he's got to build her up into some sort of paragon in order to honor her memory. Guess he figures he's going to end up with his foot in his mouth anyway, he might as well shove it all the way in. :P

 

Besides, maybe she really did bring them back together. Who knows, if Mary hadn't been around to talk him down, John might never have forgiven Sherlock after he returned from the dead. Although I doubt that's what Moffat meant. I think he just meant her (female) life was being honored, or some such sentiment.

 

I like the way he put it in TLD better: "By saving my life, she conferred a value on it I do not know how to spend."

[Inge l-w]

Dear Arcadia, Mr Moffat and strong female characters are mutually exclusive.

[gerry]

You got that right. Even the female characters he claims he loves are not well written. Don't get me started on his favorite, Irene Adler. I very much dislike his writing. The only thing I think he writes really well is male relationships: Mycroft/Sherlock, Sherlock/Lestrade and Sherlock/John.

[Arcadia]

I don't agree. But it's very likely we all look for something different from a script.

[Carol the Dabbler]

It only stands to reason that Mr. Moffat would write male characters better than female ones, seeing as he's a man himself.  Female writers tend to have the opposite problem, because women don't understand men any better than men understand women.

 

Despite his having a biased viewpoint, I must say that I like many of his female characters -- Molly, Mrs. Hudson, and Sally Donovan.  I like Mary Morstan as well, though not where he took her.  Really, Irene Adler is the only one I don't much care for.  Hmm, it occurs to me that maybe I like his original characters, but not what he does to canon females in order to make them more "interesting."

 

True, Mrs. H. is canon, but in the stories she was little more than a name -- though true to form, he's making her "more interesting."  Somehow in her case, it works, perhaps because he was starting with a nearly blank canvas.  Or maybe it's just that Una Stubbs can pull off the most outrageous nonsense with such aplomb.

[gerry]

It only stands to reason that Mr. Moffat would write male characters better than female ones, seeing as he's a man himself. Female writers tend to have the opposite problem, because women don't understand men any better than men understand women.

 

In this I completely agree. Men are often much more wimpy when written by women and the dialogue between men never seems quite right either.

 

I like Molly, Mrs. Hudson, Sally as well but I think that's more a testament to the actresses than what the script has them say and do. ETA: Meaning Molly with a lesser actress would just be a pathetic woman infatuated with Sherlock. She infuses Molly with a wonderful sensitivity and warm that rises above the script. The Christmas scene would have had a completely different feel if it was what Moffat had originally written.

[Pseudonym]

It would be nice to see a normal female character who is strong and self-confident and interesting without having to resort to making her an assassin or a stripper with a drug cartel. It seemed at first that's what they were getting with Mary, but no. Though I was on the fence even at the early stage when she seemed normal - I think they tried too hard to make her fit in with Sherlock and John's dynamic. Like right at the beginning, when Sherlock's just turned up and she says she likes him, why does she like him? He caused her soon to be husband a great amount of grief and pain, said soon-to-be husband is in a complete state about his return, and yet she likes him? Surely at this early stage she should at least be wary. I don't know what kind of character Mary would need to be to make me like her, but she grated from the beginning. 

I'm not as outraged as a lot of people seem to be about Molly's treatment, I just shrug it off, a lot of people have been humiliated by unrequited love at some point or another and it's not like that phone call was something Sherlock did because he thought it would be fun. I suppose it would have been good to see her confident and capable in the rest of her life, but then she's not a main character so we would only see her in her interactions with Sherlock. I admit I quite like the scene in her kitchen before she answers Sherlock's call, there's something strangely fascinating about seeing someone alone and just going about their business - makes me wonder if I look the same. I think I'd look more nutty, I'm normally either muttering to myself, ranting to myself if I'm angry, or dancing about with a cat if I'm feeling jolly. Lol, crack version of the scene, Molly dancing around the kitchen with her cat whilst all three Holmes and John stare on open-mouthed. 

[gerry]

Janine is probably the most self confident, well rounded female character Moffat wrote but that may be because there wasn't enough time to try to make her more interesting. I mean Mary was ok until the 3rd episode she was in, which just happened to be the Moffat episode.

[Arcadia]

I actually can't think of any of Moffat's female characters that I have trouble with. It's just Mary's background that I find ridiculous. A former assassin becomes a nurse? Oh, please. She could have been an MI-5 research assistant and they could have had the same plot revolve around her. Characterization is based on how people respond to a situation, not the situation itself.

                                                                                          

Sherlock, on the other hand, is a preposterous, abrasive, inconsistent character. But he works anyway, possibly due to Benedict's performance but also, I suspect, because there are things about him that are so true that we recognize ourselves in him. Of all the characters in the show, Sherlock is the one I most identify with. With "mousy" ordinary Molly Hooper a close second. Go figure.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I admit I quite like the scene in her kitchen before she answers Sherlock's call, there's something strangely fascinating about seeing someone alone and just going about their business - makes me wonder if I look the same. I think I'd look more nutty, I'm normally either muttering to myself, ranting to myself if I'm angry, or dancing about with a cat if I'm feeling jolly. Lol, crack version of the scene, Molly dancing around the kitchen with her cat whilst all three Holmes and John stare on open-mouthed. 

 

Hee-hee.  Glad to know I'm not the only one!  There was one cat that I used to waltz with regularly, but now I can't recall who it was.  Not one of the current crew, obviously.  Probably Claudius.

[T.o.b.y]

Oh lord, why do I finally revisit this thread in the middle of the night and on my phone where I can't properly do multiquote? So much I would love to reply to...

 

The question why exactly Sherlock is a good man now and how Lestrade knows that even though he was hardly present this series is a very interesting one.

 

Just a few random thoughts on this for now, I hope I will be back and do better eventually:

 

Sherlock is a good man because he has realized that having a metaphorical heart is not a weakness after all. His former ideal of a huge brain lugged around by some unimportant "transport" would, if fully lived up to, have ended with becoming like Eurus. The things she scoffs at, morality, honor, compassion, love, are not meaningless after all, in fact, by rejecting her humanity, she has become dangerous, destructive, insane and unhappy. In The Lying Detective, Sherlock acknowledged that he and John are only human, in the final episode he realizes that this isn't a bad thing. He may be "just an idiot" compared to his sister, but at least he remains "on the ground".

 

And it is his "heart" that solves her puzzle, not his brain. He seeks to understand her state of mind, discovers the motivation behind her cruel game, realizes she is crying for help and so saves John and regains peace of mind. He can't save Eurus because she is way beyond saving, but in the end he won through emotional intelligence rather than logical reasoning and also because he managed not to get carried away by hate or fury over what his sister has done, which is quite a heroic act in itself.

 

The message "it's not just intelligence that counts" is an important one to me personally. I think culturally, we are at a point where we fetishize intellectual prowess as we once did physical strength. But in the end, both attributes are superficial in my opinion and don't make anyone a better person. I think the original Sherlock Holmes got that and I have always worshipped him as a "great heart behind a great brain". Of course young Sherlock the sociopath was more entertaining. Which is why the series is now over, rightfully so. His story is complete and for all its flaws, I like it. I think they got many fundamental aspects right.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree with everything you said except the last two sentences!  :P

 

So what if he's now become the canonical Sherlock Holmes?  They can still have fun updating the stories and pulling switches on us, the way they did in the first two series.  At least I hope they can have fun -- if not, then there's little point in their continuing, because I doubt we'd have fun watching anything they created just because the BBC wanted it or whatever.

[T.o.b.y]

I agree with everything you said except the last two sentences! :P

 

So what if he's now become the canonical Sherlock Holmes? They can still have fun updating the stories and pulling switches on us, the way they did in the first two series. At least I hope they can have fun -- if not, then there's little point in their continuing, because I doubt we'd have fun watching anything they created just because the BBC wanted it or whatever.

Of course the series could continue and maybe it will. But Sherlock's personal story is complete, so it would have to change from a story about a detective to a detective story or rather a series of detective stories. Which would be like the books, of course. I just happen to like a neat little parcel of narrative with a proper ending that revolves around personal development so for me, the story is over and I am happy. Besides, I do miss the sociopath.

[Inge l-w]

The so-called sociopath is a carbon copy of the original Sherlock Holmes, which is why S1&2 were way better than S3&4. Stories about a detective are fine, as long as he's detecting, not behaving irrationally.

[J.P.]

Hmmm... If brains is so fetishized, why is so much stupid in the world? :P

[Shadow Dweller]

Hmmm... If brains is so fetishized, why is so much stupid in the world? :P

Because most only can role-play the exterior but without the proper hardware installed the interior is still made from the same stuff that produced the aforementioned stupid.

 

help meeee......!!!

[Arcadia]

Toby, as usual .... 

[gerry]

In The Lying Detective, Sherlock acknowledged that he and John are only human, in the final episode he realizes that this isn't a bad thing. He may be "just an idiot" compared to his sister, but at least he remains "on the ground".

 

How was it shown in TFP that Sherlock realizes that it isn't a bad thing? That's actually something I found missing in the end of TFP.... i.e. what Sherlock learned from Eurus and her trials.

[Surelock]

 

In The Lying Detective, Sherlock acknowledged that he and John are only human, in the final episode he realizes that this isn't a bad thing. He may be "just an idiot" compared to his sister, but at least he remains "on the ground".

How was it shown in TFP that Sherlock realizes that it isn't a bad thing? That's actually something I found missing in the end of TFP.... i.e. what Sherlock learned from Eurus and her trials.

 

 

Because Sherlock was able to help Euros 'land' by being an idiot and being human.

 

In comparison Mycroft, somebody who tried to be smart and superhuman, didn't know how to deal with Euros for years. 

[gerry]

I disagree with that I guess then because he still had to solve her riddle to figure out her motivation because "save me brother" was in the riddle solution. His heart didn't understand her being up in the plane until after he solved the riddle and his motivation for solving the riddle was saving John, not Eurus.

[Surelock]

I disagree with that I guess then because he still had to solve her riddle to figure out her motivation because "save me brother" was in the riddle solution. His heart didn't understand her being up in the plane until after he solved the riddle and his motivation for solving the riddle was saving John, not Eurus.

 

Actually Sherlock already had an idea of Euros' loneliness even before he solved the riddle. Remember Euros revealed that Redbeard was Victor Trevor and explained how Sherlock chose him over her made her feel lonely. I don't think Sherlock would have understood that Euros had rationalised herself as a girl on the plane if he didn't first know of her loneliness.

 

If say, Season 1 Sherlock was in that situation, I think he wouldn't have empathised with Euros at all. He would have thought that Euros was just messing with him by pretending to be a girl on a plane. He would have yelled his head off at her. Then Euros would never have told him where John was and thus John would have drowned. I think the empathy Sherlock developed over the series did make a difference.

[Shadow Dweller]

Nah, Sherlock season 1 would be looking for a way to defeat Eurus. For Sherlock in that period, the game is everything and it means a match of wits with worthy opponent.

[gerry]

 

 

I disagree with that I guess then because he still had to solve her riddle to figure out her motivation because "save me brother" was in the riddle solution. His heart didn't understand her being up in the plane until after he solved the riddle and his motivation for solving the riddle was saving John, not Eurus.

Actually Sherlock already had an idea of Euros' loneliness even before he solved the riddle. Remember Euros revealed that Redbeard was Victor Trevor and explained how Sherlock chose him over her made her feel lonely. I don't think Sherlock would have understood that Euros had rationalised herself as a girl on the plane if he didn't first know of her loneliness.

This is actually my point. Eurus basically spelled everything out to Sherlock, i.e.she told him there was no dog so that he remembered Victor and she gave him the final clue to solve the riddle ("I had no one"). The riddle solution explicitly stated she wanted to be saved so he was able to deduce she was the girl in the plane metaphorically. He didn't figure these things out on his own from his newfound human empathy. He had to be lead to the solutions, to the reasons, which is why I find the idea that this scene was him realizing that empathy is better than the way he had been living hard to believe.

 

I agree with you Shadow... he would have enjoyed the game and respected her ability to fool him while also wanting to defeat her in the next "round" which is also why I view her like a female Moriarty and why I think he insisted on seeing her. He wanted to know how she got out, he was fascinated by her. The only difference between this game in TFP and the one in TGG was that the person in danger was someone Sherlock loved so the stakes were higher and now he knew she was actually capable of killing his friends with no remorse.