Sherlock (the BBC character)

[T.o.b.y]

 

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.

 

That's one possible interpretation... Not mine, though, because to me, it doesn't sound like Lestrade only just realized Sherlock had fulfilled his potential to become the "good man" he was hoping for in series 1. I think he had come to that conclusion a while ago and just chose that particular time to voice it. When and why exactly Lestrade decided Sherlock now met his criteria for goodness, no idea. But it had to be said during the final episode at some point, and this was as good an opportunity to get the line in as any.

 

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.

 

I didn't get the impression that they were trying for anything profound either and the show has always been made primarily for entertainment (and profit, of course) if you ask me. Still, I find a lot of food for thought in it, which I love, and I don't really care whether certain questions are raised intentionally or not; it doesn't impact my enjoyment of pondering them.

 

 

 

:lol: I take offense at that statement on behalf of children's books, especially some of the classic British ones. :P

 

The opposite could also be said which is you see what you want to see and that would be just as rude.

 

I wouldn't consider that rude in this case... I do see what I want to see. Because this is fiction - I don't owe anybody anything. The characters aren't real, I can't hurt them by misunderstanding their motivations or insult them by the way I talk or think about them, and as for the creators, they got my money and I am not pestering them on social media or trying to sue them for some perceived transgression in their content, so why should they bother how I choose to interpret their work? Fiction is the one place where it's totally fine to just see things your way and get the most you can out of that. I love fiction. So much easier to deal with than real life... :P

[gerry]

I wouldn't consider that rude in this case... I do see what I want to see.

The only comparison I was trying to make is that both lines for me can be quite dismissive to whom it's directed just in different ways, though context is always important. In the context of the show, the "you do see but you just don't observe" line was rude because Sherlock said it in a frustrated, exasperated tone when he felt that Lestrade just "didn't get it".

[J.P.]

 

:lol: I take offense at that statement on behalf of children's books, especially some of the classic British ones. :P

Well, maybe he meant: if you want to read something really complicated, read some children books first. (Sherlock is quite simple in comparison)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Uh. We are in Ben's thread actually…

So - where's the baby? -_-

 

Well, technically speaking, we're in Sherlock's thread -- so I've move the baby-oriented responses to the BC News thread (where Inge had already beat y'all to the punch by a few hours).

[T.o.b.y]

hI like how they found a modern explanation for his (in this series late) strong disapproval of suicide. In the original, I think this was mostly due to Doyle's religious beliefs and Victorian values. Modern Sherlock has a more personal reason: Seeing John after Mary took the bullet in addition to his own feeling of loss after she was dead (double loss, because not only was Mary gone but John cut off all contact as well). I also take his statement about how when you take your own life, it won't be you who will miss it to be, finally, a full realization of how bad an idea it really was to fake killing himself before John in The Reichenbach Fall, even though that's never explicitly stated. And that is important to me because I still get a lot more upset about that choice of Sherlock's than over his shooting Magnussen, for example.

[T.o.b.y]

I have moved all the recent posts where we got into a discussion comparing series 4 to the previous ones here:

 

http://www.sherlockforum.com/forum/topic/2329-what-series-of-sherlock-is-your-favourite/page-7?do=findComment&comment=121221

 

See you there!

[Van Buren Supernova]

Good move T.o.b.y,

 

I'm probably one of the few who is okay with S4 in general (although find couple of disappointing plots) but my first reaction is defense when it's criticized badly and I wanted to write looong post to defend it, but then again, I realize we basically do the same thing, whether we approve it or not, it means we still want to talk about it, so maybe I don't need to defend anything, as long as there are reasonable reasonings :p to bash it.

(Also have to admit I can't have a lot to say for S4 yet before rewatch although I do have a lot of unsorted ideas in mind, so I'd need time I don't have now for that defense :p)

It's just that I get tired when many threads turn into bashing up the season in general while I want to read about Sherlock only, for example.

 

So thanks Tob

[J.P.]

But, but… we are bashing with love!

[Van Buren Supernova]

Love is chemical defect, remember? :p

[J.P.]

Not so much in this case. :D

[Van Buren Supernova]

hI like how they found a modern explanation for his (in this series late) strong disapproval of suicide.

I find that interesting too, although he himself always tests the limit of his own body he could end up killing himself too. Maybe there is guilt-responsibility (not maybe, there is!) if a person contemplating suicide and you are the last person they hope that could change their mind. We see that happens in

Mr.Holmes

.

 

Other things that come to my mind regarding Sherlock:

- When he was on the floor with John kicking him, was he scared too?

Him threatening Smith was his idea, and yes, he feels guilty and lets John unleash on him :(, but at that very moment, he was also facing one of the things we know he is scared of the most; not being able to trust himself, doubt, his HOB moment when he finds out Faith is not who he met, and whether, he actually met her or it was just his imagination.

 

- why/how Sherlock took drugs in the first place? I always thought some childhood trauma regarding Redbeard is the answer. But it's not, because he didn't remember it.

With the parents, who seem to care about their children (especially when they lost one) and caring (or you can say overbearing) big brother, how did he fall for that on the first place? He has enough distraction, as the parents seem like the type to support whatever education he would pursue as well, and he has intellectual spare in Mycroft to keep it interesting. Adult Sherlock, I could believe that he tests himself and decides he could handle drug if it's used 'wisely', but in TAB we saw teenager Sherlock who didn't seem to handle himself well in the drug den, more like addiction than experiment to me.

So why, did he remember Redbeard subconsciously? Maybe he did, because both brothers seem to disapprove their parent's idea for them to have friends (ghastly), so Sherlock's subconsciousness about Redbeard also gave him a 'warning' not to get involved again?

[J.P.]

Other things that come to my mind regarding Sherlock:

- When he was on the floor with John kicking him, was he scared too?

Him threatening Smith was his idea, and yes, he feels guilty and lets John unleash on him :(, but at that very moment, he was also facing one of the things we know he is scared of the most; not being able to trust himself, doubt, his HOB moment when he finds out Faith is not who he met, and whether, he actually met her or it was just his imagination.

 

I think he might hardly realise what happened to him, because his mind was falling into an abyss of self-doubt and fear. It's almost a deha-vu of the end of HLV. Sherlock thinks he was outsmarted by CS (because he don't know about Eurus) and tries to get rid of the baddie… but now, thinking about it - Sherlock had actually no proof that CS is actually a killer, beside his drugged vision (because it's not even a deduction), so he tries to provoke John to send him into a hospital, which was the way to prove CS' guilt. And Sherlock was prepared for it, because he let the nurse replace the IV bottle.

 

 

- why/how Sherlock took drugs in the first place? I always thought some childhood trauma regarding Redbeard is the answer. But it's not, because he didn't remember it.

With the parents, who seem to care about their children (especially when they lost one) and caring (or you can say overbearing) big brother, how did he fall for that on the first place? He has enough distraction, as the parents seem like the type to support whatever education he would pursue as well, and he has intellectual spare in Mycroft to keep it interesting. Adult Sherlock, I could believe that he tests himself and decides he could handle drug if it's used 'wisely', but in TAB we saw teenager Sherlock who didn't seem to handle himself well in the drug den, more like addiction than experiment to me.

I think I answered it… elsewhere

[Arcadia]

Oh gosh, why does any bright young person take drugs? That's been a mystery all my life, because I've never felt the impulse to experiment with the stuff. I accept that other people do, but I can't imagine why. Luckily for me, since I have a somewhat addictive personality.

 

At any rate, there's Sherlock's explanation, that he takes drugs to alleviate boredom and heighten his thinking process, which I have chosen to assume is him lying to himself. Also, at the end of TLD he admits to being intrigued by his experiences while high, which I will assume to be closer to the truth. Either way, I do think Moftiss comes perilously near justifying his drug use. Maybe they just assume everyone will automatically disapprove of it, so they don't need to explain the down side.

 

Or maybe not; Hollywood is infamous for its tolerant drug culture; does the same situation exist in Britain? (Is there a British equivalent to Hollywood?)

 

By the way, he does remember his childhood trauma, he just doesn't remember it accurately. But I'm guessing he could have also turned to drugs to alleviate the pain of existing.

[gerry]

I assume his drug use is more a function of that he doesn't have much in the way of a life if he doesn't have a case to solve thus the "boredom" excuse and his attraction to dangerous people and situations.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect that Sherlock's apparent attraction to dangerous situations and people is not actually that as such. It's more that he's attracted to puzzling situations and unusual people, and doesn't give a damn whether they're dangerous or not.

[Arcadia]

Y'know, I've always been puzzled by why Sherlock tells Moriarty he never liked riddles. And also by why John says he's not a puzzle solver.  Maybe I'm just applying too general a definition to those terms, but it seems to me that's exactly what he does, and what he likes; working out clues to come up with the correct answer. Anyone want to try and explain those two lines to me?

[Shadow Dweller]

IMO, Sherlock doesn't like unsolvable riddles. A belief on himself and his abilities formed some of his core, an unsolvable riddle would shake that foundation.

 

When did John said that?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

IMO, Sherlock doesn't like unsolvable riddles. A belief on himself and his abilities formed some of his core, an unsolvable riddle would shake that foundation.

 

When did John said that?

TSOT outside Major Sholto's door. Told him he wasn't a puzzle solver but a drama queen the game was on now solve it (partially quoted partially paraphrased).

[Arcadia]

IMO, Sherlock doesn't like unsolvable riddles. A belief on himself and his abilities formed some of his core, an unsolvable riddle would shake that foundation.

Well, I agree with that, but he didn't say "unsolvable riddles", he said "riddles." (Have you noticed how the more you type that word, the sillier it looks? "Riddles...." ) That's why I'm wondering if I'm over-interpreting the meaning of the word.

[Van Buren Supernova]

I always think that riddles is different with puzzles, but I could be very wrong.

To me, puzzles are more relate-able to cases and require good amount of logic to solve it, which in turn, could be fun.

 

Riddles on the other hand, tend to be annoying, persistently annoying and sometimes doesn't require logic/bend the logic to solve, or sometimes doesn't really make sense.

[Arcadia]

But according to the show, Sherlock doesn't like either of them. Well, okay, he doesn't like riddles, and he isn't a puzzle-solver. But he is, isn't he? So what do those statements really mean, or did Moftiss just think they sounded cool?

[Inge l-w]

My bet would be on the latter, given their complete disregard to detail and to repeating themselves through the characters' lines!

[J.P.]

I think Sherlock just needed to say something. Mr Punchline in action :P

[Arcadia]

*singsong* But it was Jo-oohnnnn who said the second onnnnne....

[Shadow Dweller]

John probably got annoyed of what he perceived as Sherlock focusing on theatrics instead of solving the case then tied up the loose strings.