Sherlock (the BBC character)

[Arcadia]

I agree that I would have liked to see Sherlock be more proactive in figuring out what Eurus wanted (needed?), but I think in the end it doesn't matter how he got there (and I also think he doesn't get enough credit for finally solving the gravestone riddle .... he was brilliant, there; in charge and focused.) What mattered was what he did next. I think Season 1 & 2 Sherlock would have been crueller, more dismissive, more violent with her (look how he treated the injured cabbie.) He wouldn't have wrapped her in a hug, looked her in the eyes and offered to help her.

[gerry]

Solving the riddle was brilliant but it wasn't driven by empathy. I also think how he treated the cabbie will always be an apples to oranges comparison to Eurus because she's family. Even in S1 and S2 I can't see him treating family like he treated the cabbie.

[Shadow Dweller]

As long as he is not high, lol. If he is then all bets are off, probably.

[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.

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 don't see how Sherlock treated Euros wasn't a result of empathy. People don't just give you hugs because you tell them that you're lonely. They have to empathise with you first.

 

You need empathy to understand Euros' message. If Sherlock didn't have any empathy then he could have easily have misinterpreted Euros' message. He could have misunderstood the message to be insincere. He may have even thought Euros was just mocking him. 

 

I could easily see Season 1 Sherlock (who's arrogant and fairly unempathetic) responding to the riddle's message like this:

 

'What do you mean about loneliness? You're not lonely. You can brainwash people with your mind control powers. You can have as many friends as you want. How do you need saving? You're not being drowned like John. You don't need to be saved. It's only other people that need to be saved from a murderer like you.'

 

Do you honestly believe Season 1 Sherlock would have treated Euros the same way that Season 4 Sherlock did after everything she put him and his friends through? 

 

 

 

Also the riddle didn't make any reference to the girl on the plane. Sherlock figuring out that Euros had created metaphor in her mind of being a girl on the plane was once again a result of empathy. I don't see Season 1 Sherlock being able to make a connection like this. Season 1 Sherlock wouldn't even be thinking about Euros' feelings unlike Season 4 Sherlock.

 

 

[gerry]

I don't see how Sherlock treated Euros wasn't a result of empathy. People don't just give you hugs because you tell them that you're lonely. They have to empathise with you first.

 

You need empathy to understand Euros' message. If Sherlock didn't have any empathy then he could have easily have misinterpreted Euros' message. He could have misunderstood the message to be insincere. He may have even thought Euros was just mocking him. ....

 

Do you honestly believe Season 1 Sherlock would have treated Euros the same way that Season 4 Sherlock did after everything she put him and his friends through?

 

Also the riddle didn't make any reference to the girl on the plane. Sherlock figuring out that Euros had created metaphor in her mind of being a girl on the plane was once again a result of empathy. I don't see Season 1 Sherlock being able to make a connection like this. Season 1 Sherlock wouldn't even be thinking about Euros' feelings unlike Season 4 Sherlock.

It's not much a deduction for someone as brilliant Sherlock to get the plane metaphor considering the riddle solution said save me brother and after he spent all the trials thinking he needed to save a little girl from a plane and after she lamented how she had no one. I saw TGG and he was able to solve those puzzles with a lot fewer clues.

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Regarding the hug aspect, Sherlock has been shown to hug only a couple people right? Mrs. Hudson in season 1 and John/Eurus in season 4. I didnt give it much thought but Sherlock was trying to get her to save John. Not sure yelling her at that point would have helped his ultimate objective but telling her what she wanted to hear would be and he's been doing that to lots of people since the series began. Even if this was season 1, no I don't think he would have been that much different with Eurus because she's family. He has always treated those in his family/inner circle differently than everyone else.

[Surelock]

 

Regarding the hug aspect, Sherlock has been shown to hug only a couple people right? Mrs. Hudson in season 1 and John/Eurus in season 4. I didnt give it much thought but Sherlock was trying to get her to save John. Not sure yelling her at that point would have helped his ultimate objective but telling her what she wanted to hear would be and he's been doing that to lots of people since the series began. Even if this was season 1, no I don't think he would have been that much different with Eurus because she's family. He has always treated those in his family/inner circle differently than everyone else.

 

 

Why do you keep bringing up Euros being part of Sherlock's family? Sherlock still didn't know her so she was practically a stranger to him. I don't see Sherlock giving Euros special treatment if he hadn't already developed empathy over the course of the series.

 

I mean take a look at what Euros did to Sherlock:

 

1. Killed his childhood friend Victor.

2. Burnt their childhood house down.

3. Blew up his apartment.

4. Mind controlled people in Sherrinford to kill their family and then themselves.

5. Forced the governor to kill himself and then killed his wife.

6. Killed the 3 brothers, even the 2 that were innocent.

7. Lied to him that Molly was in danger and forced him to confess to her.

8. Pressured him into killing Mycroft or John.

 

Do you really think after all this, Season 1 Sherlock would be willing to give Euros a hug? I think it's more likely he would slap her across her face and tell her to stop messing around with him.

 

Season 1 Sherlock isn't always calm and in-control. He loses his temper when pressure is put on him especially when it's a matter of life and death. An example of this would be in The Great Game where Moriarty asks him to figure out how the painting is fake and threatens to blow up a child if he fails to do so. During this moment, Sherlock starts yelling at the art gallery lady to tell him how it's fake.

 

Above all this, Sherlock needed to accept his own flaws in order to explain to Euros that it was safe to 'land':

http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/92287.html

 

 

SHERLOCK: Look how brilliant you are. Your mind has created the perfect metaphor. You’re high above us, all alone in the sky, and you understand everything except how to land. (He shifts round and sits down in front of her, breathless and anxious.) Now, I’m just an idiot, but I’m on the ground. (He reaches out and puts his fingers onto her hands.) I can bring you home.

 

 

Sherlock calls himself an idiot which is something he wouldn't have done in Season 1. In the early seasons, Sherlock was obsessed with portraying himself as perfect and flawless. The most telling example of this would be how in A Scandal in Belgravia, Sherlock tells John to not put cases that he hasn't solved on his blog. However by The Sign of Three, Sherlock is willing to tell of a case he hasn't solved to an audience at John's wedding.

 

Sherlock learnt to accept and even talk about his flaws as the seasons progressed. That's why I don't see Season 1 Sherlock being able to save John if he were up against Euros.

[Arcadia]

I'm glad you quoted that line, Sure, because reading it made me realize something else ... the reason he has empathy for her is because he's been alone in the clouds himself, and he's found his way to the ground, and he can compare the two. He understands the metaphor. But even better, he's revealing something about himself to the audience ... he found it just as terrifying up there as Eurus does.

 

Neat.

 

Okay, that's it ... time to actually read the transcripts (instead of quoting them) and see what other little bits of poetry I've missed.

[gerry]

 

 

 

Regarding the hug aspect, Sherlock has been shown to hug only a couple people right? Mrs. Hudson in season 1 and John/Eurus in season 4. I didnt give it much thought but Sherlock was trying to get her to save John. Not sure yelling her at that point would have helped his ultimate objective but telling her what she wanted to hear would be and he's been doing that to lots of people since the series began. Even if this was season 1, no I don't think he would have been that much different with Eurus because she's family. He has always treated those in his family/inner circle differently than everyone else.

 

Why do you keep bringing up Euros being part of Sherlock's family? Sherlock still didn't know her so she was practically a stranger to him.

For the same reason that I believe that if Moriarty/CAM/cabbie/insert any other villain had done the same list of things to Sherlock he wouldn't have forgiven him and visited him in jail/asylum to maintain a semblance of a relationship. It doesn't matter that Sherlock couldn't remember Eurus because he knew she was his sister before going to Sherrinford. There's also the conversation between Mrs Holmes and Mycroft where she says paraphrasing "no matter what's she's done or what she's become, she's still our daughter" and Mycroft responded "and my sister". Being family was relevant the entire episode from Mycroft saying at the beginning "this is about family" and Sherlock yelling "and that's why he stays". It was one of the themes of the episode.

[Inge l-w]

And a very poor choice to introduce more family in the guise of a non-existent sibling. I would bet pounds to shillings that if the revered Sherlockian societies of both the UK and the US knew beforehand what Moftiss had planned, they would have strenuously objected to the whole series: in short, we have been led up the garden path, but then, neither of the creators professes himself to be a gentleman!

[bedelia1984]

And a very poor choice to introduce more family in the guise of a non-existent sibling. I would bet pounds to shillings that if the revered Sherlockian societies of both the UK and the US knew beforehand what Moftiss had planned, they would have strenuously objected to the whole series: in short, we have been led up the garden path, but then, neither of the creators professes himself to be a gentleman!

 

I beg your pardon, Inge l-w, but I believe one of the creators actually belongs to a League of gentlemen.

[Arcadia]

 

 

Why do you keep bringing up Euros being part of Sherlock's family? Sherlock still didn't know her so she was practically a stranger to him.

For the same reason that I believe that if Moriarty/CAM/cabbie/insert any other villain had done the same list of things to Sherlock he wouldn't have forgiven him.......

 

And there, in a nutshell is ... not my childhood, but a perfectly good reason to have another episode of Sherlock ... because I'm willing to bet that now he would be willing to extend empathy even to his foes, if he thought it was warranted.

 

I would question whether he's forgiven Eurus, or simply understood her. There's a difference. I'm not sure forgiveness even applies in the case of the mentally ill, except to ease your own psyche. Thinking she's been forgiven wouldn't make any difference to Eurus, I would think. Or maybe it would, it's still not clear to me how much she understands.

 

Anyway, CAM and Smith, I have no empathy for, they deserved whatever happened to them, imo. (And before someone jumps on this -- thinking CAM deserved what he got is not the same as thinking Sherlock had the authority to carry out the sentence ... so there! :p) 

 

The cabbie was a great antagonist because I could feel a little sorry for him, and could be a little upset that Sherlock proved to be just as ruthless; and for some reason, I felt a little bad for the original Moriarty as well. (Not the one that showed up in S4, though; he was a bogeyman, not a villain.) I remember thinking "abused child." :( I felt bad for Ajay, too. But not Norbury. But I'm betting Sherlock is wishing now that he'd shown Norbury a little more understanding ("forgiveness") and a little less judgement. I wouldn't mind seeing that he's learned that lesson even when the "villain" is not a member of his family, that would be a nice little bit of character development.

[gerry]

 

 

 

Why do you keep bringing up Euros being part of Sherlock's family? Sherlock still didn't know her so she was practically a stranger to him.

For the same reason that I believe that if Moriarty/CAM/cabbie/insert any other villain had done the same list of things to Sherlock he wouldn't have forgiven him.......

And there, in a nutshell is ... not my childhood, but a perfectly good reason to have another episode of Sherlock ... because I'm willing to bet that now he would be willing to extend empathy even to his foes, if he thought it was warranted.

 

I would question whether he's forgiven Eurus, or simply understood her. There's a difference. I'm not sure forgiveness even applies in the case of the mentally ill, except to ease your own psyche. Thinking she's been forgiven wouldn't make any difference to Eurus, I would think. Or maybe it would, it's still not clear to me how much she understands.

Regarding the first, maybe or maybe not, but I'd still argue that kind of character development wasn't evident in TFP. You'd have to infer it from interpretation of the last Eurus scene or the montage but it wasn't shown through dialogue, at least not to me anyway.

 

Regarding the forgiveness term, that was the term used by the Eurus actress in the DVD extras. When talking about the violin duet she used the term forgive which probably influenced me when thinking about that scene. But considering there was no dialogue in the montage, you are free theorize any motivation you like!

[Inge l-w]

Dear Bedelia, writing scripts for A league of Gentlemen is not a qualification for belonging to either the British or the US branches of Sherlockian fans. The former are actually called so, ant the American one is the very posh Baker Street Irregulars: do try to get elected a member and see what happens! Very secluded, very into the original stories, very, very possessive of the original character.

[T.o.b.y]

So, some of us agree that Sherlock was shown to become a better man and some don't. The question remains, if he did become "good", how does Lestrade know, who was hardly present during series 4 and certainly did not directly witness anything that happened at Sherrinford or Musgrave.

 

Either he is referring to experiences he had with Sherlock recently that occurred off screen or his remark refers to more than just that events of the last few episodes. After all, Lestrade hasn't commented on Sherlock and goodness vs greatness since A Study in Pink and an awful lot has happened since then.

 

You can really go off on quite a philosophical tangent after watching Sherlock. What is "goodness" in a person, anyway? Is it altruism? Does true altruism really exist? Was Eurus right after all and the terms "good" and "evil" would turn out to be irrelevant and meaningless if we examined them closely enough? Do we want to go there? I don't think the show necessarily means to raise these questions (I still maintain it is primarily made for entertainment), but it just so happens to and that's great in my opinion.

 

Personally, I think Sherlock was always a good man at his core. Because even in series 1, the question he put to John was whether caring would help save people and if it wouldn't, he would continue to avoid that "mistake". Now, this sounds heartless, but note that Sherlock's goal was still saving people, which is certainly a "good" motivation in my book. Btw, doesn't knowing what we do now about his past make that scene so much sadder? Little Sherlock certainly must have cared an awful lot about his best friend Victor, but he couldn't save him and the extreme emotional stress on him at the time can't have helped when he was trying to think clearly and figure out his sister's puzzle. No wonder, no wonder at all that he decided he had to distance himself from emotions and human attachments in the future, both to avoid more heartbreak but also to become an effective investigator (I didn't write "effective detective" on purpose; I detest accidental rhymes).

 

The revelation of The Final Problem is that empathy and love can be helpful for Sherlock after all, even when trying to solve a mystery, in fact, if he had continued to block those things, he wouldn't have been able to solve the mystery. And still, his emotions do not govern him; he doesn't panic when he learns John is in the well and possibly about to die like Victor did, he continues to function, but instead of applying only cold reason and blocking his emotional input out, he listens to what his metaphorical "heart" tells him about his sister and her state of mind and by meeting her with compassion and forgiveness (even though one might argue that what she did is not forgivable), he gets her to cooperate with him long enough to free John and let herself be taken back to Sherrinford.

 

Maybe that is the Final Problem: How to manage empathy, kindness, feeling, love so that they are not weaknesses but actually make us stronger? If so, my hat is off to this show once again for not just taking that for granted like so many other works of fiction do.

[J.P.]

Amen!

[Surelock]

So, some of us agree that Sherlock was shown to become a better man and some don't. The question remains, if he did become "good", how does Lestrade know, who was hardly present during series 4 and certainly did not directly witness anything that happened at Sherrinford or Musgrave.

 

Either he is referring to experiences he had with Sherlock recently that occurred off screen or his remark refers to more than just that events of the last few episodes. After all, Lestrade hasn't commented on Sherlock and goodness vs greatness since A Study in Pink and an awful lot has happened since then.

 

 

Lestrade specifically makes that comment shortly after Sherlock expresses concern for Mycroft. So it looks like what Sherlock needed to do all along to be considered a 'good man' was express concern for Mycroft.

 

This is why Lestrade's line feels so forced in that scene. Are you telling me that I waited 4 seasons just for Sherlock to make a passing comment on Mycroft's well being? Even if Moffatiss wanted to hinge Sherlock's good man-ness on his conern for Mycroft then they could at least have made the scene more dramatic and memorable. Mycroft wasn't even present in that scene. 

 

Personally I think Moffatiss just had Lestrade deliver that line because they were in a hurry to tie up all the loose ends in the series because they feared this would be the last season. I think they could have done a more convincing job of delivering that line but (like many other things in this season) they didn't have time so they just rushed it.

[gerry]

I think they could have done a more convincing job of delivering that line but (like many other things in this season) they didn't have time so they just rushed it.

This is season 4 in a nutshell for me. So much of it seemed underdeveloped and the end rushed.

[Arcadia]

I can't disagree with that. But I agree with Toby's point too ... I give them points for at least addressing complex subjects.

[gerry]

Call me a skeptic but I find it hard to believe given what they used for plots that complex issues being addressed was intended. They seem to intend James Bond entertainment more than deep thought.

[Inge l-w]

Deep thoughts, proper scripts and well-rounded characters are not in the creator's repertoires. Magpying, stealing ideas right left and centre and then cobbling up a reasonably acceptable version are their forte!

[Arcadia]

You see, but you do not observe.

[Surelock]

You see, but you do not observe.

 

This is just a more polite version of Moffatiss saying:

 

[gerry]

I didn't care for the implication of that line either. Just because someone doesn't see it your way doesn't mean they are too dense to observe. The opposite could also be said which is you see what you want to see and that would be just as rude.

[Arcadia]

I'm tempted to say "All right, all right, girls, calm down," but I don't think that would have the intended effect. So I'll just apologize for any hurt feelings and move along.

[Inge l-w]

No hurt feelings whatsoever on the part of this contributor! I have always considered Mr Gatiss the more Sherlockian of the two, but if he throws snippy fits every time he encounters a bit of honest criticism ( like the copy-paste poem to a critical review from a not very good original by ACD,) then he deserves all the opprobrium he gets. Who does he think he is, after all: the sum of his creative effort on Sherlock has been rather mediocre at best, according to both Radio Times and Sherlockshome.net polls. His outstanding script was The Great Game, back in 2010, ever since that, ahem!