Sherlock (the BBC character)

[gerry]

he has emotions of course but they don't rule him. .... However, when it comes to recognising emotions in other people, Sherlock does seem a bit blind.

Yes this is the distinction I believe. There's a difference between being emotional and having emotional intelligence while empathy is whether you care about the emotions you foresee/recognize in other people. You don't have to be emotional to have emotional intelligence. I'd imagine criminal profilers are probably the least emotional people but have high emotional intelligence. They'd have to in order to be able to predict behavior of others, you'd have to understand the way criminals feel and how their mind works but be objective enough not to be destroyed by the worst in human nature they see.

 

Said another way, if two people go see a movie and only one cries does that mean only one person can be moved by what they saw or is it possible for the two people to just process and express their emotions differently?

 

To me, Sherlock is very emotional but has limited emotional intelligence and empathy. TEH was quintessential Sherlock. When Mycroft and Sherlock were talking at the beginning, Mycroft knew that John wasn't going to be immediately happy to see Sherlock like Sherlock thought but Mycroft let Sherlock find out on his own. Sherlock couldn't foresee how John would feel because all Sherlock could see was how he felt, happy. Sherlock has a hard time understanding emotions in other people he doesn't feel himself or have felt before which to me supports a lack of emotional intelligence.

 

At the end of the day I guess it comes down to how you define emotional intelligence. In the context it was brought up here when comparing Mycroft and Sherlock, it just didnt make sense to me.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

You guys were just being difficult, right? :P

Honestly I wasn't. Or, maybe a little. XD

But I really didn't know the answer. He looks human, but he has elf ears. But then again this is set in future (right?:o), so there could be mutation or evolution, same with that one with wrinkled forehead, I don't know what he is as well. Only remember seeing him in TV donkey years ago and he sticks because I was wondering how he cleans that everyday. If that question was not a multiple choices, I probably write in Klingon. I'm quite sure it's a language (is it?) but the race/breed/species could be called the same, as I don't have any other guesses. I remember the word Vulcan only because you mentioned it. So yah, I won't be able to save my own life with Star Trek knowledge.

 

I don't agree that mycroft is as cold and heartless as that would imply nor that Sherlocks intentions to solve his cases is to save people.

I feel like here there's an idea here that Sherlock is emotionally intellligent but yet ignorant to how he hurts people. How can both be true?

I think it's a valid question and I don't have good response as I don't have chance to ponder about it now.

 

Not sure if it's related, I remember reading something awhile ago that empathy is not really an empathy unless you act on it. Two people witness a mishap of someone falling on the street. Both understand that it hurts and the person could use some help, but it's not life threatening situation and given little time the person would manage. One walks away. One decides to help.

By definition, I suppose (I could be very wrong!) both have empathy capacity but only the one who acts on that has the true empathy?

The Star Trek characters with wrinkly heads are Klingons and they do have a written/spoken language of the same name. I know a teenager learning it this year for homeschool.

[Arcadia]

 

Maybe Carol can help me out here ... I'm fairly certain there's a point in the Star Trek canon ... in one of the movies, I think ... where Spock says that he thinks the Vulcans got it wrong, that eliminating emotions is not the path to creating a perfect being after all.

 

That was the first movie, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, at the end.  Spock tells Kirk that V'ger was an intellectual marvel, but a simple feeling like affection was completely beyond its ability to comprehend.  At the beginning of the movie, Spock was about to complete his Kolinahr training to rid himself of all emotion, but has apparently decided that's not actually a wise course for him.

 

Thanks Carol!

 

Not sure if it's related, I remember reading something awhile ago that empathy is not really an empathy unless you act on it. Two people witness a mishap of someone falling on the street. Both understand that it hurts and the person could use some help, but it's not life threatening situation and given little time the person would manage. One walks away. One decides to help.

By definition, I suppose (I could be very wrong!) both have empathy capacity but only the one who acts on that has the true empathy?

 

Mmmm, I don't think you necessarily have less empathy if you fail to act on it. I'm not sure what that would be called, though. Charity, maybe? Philanthropy? Those are usually thought of as giving money, but they can also mean giving help. Benevolence? Humanitarianism? Why are all these words for being kind to each other so long? (Because they're important! )

 

 

Gerry: There's more evidence in the show of Sherlock not understanding people's emotions/reactions than there are of Mycroft yet there's several people here saying Sherlock has more emotional intelligence.

 

You have a point, I think perhaps it's that Sherlock is more emotional than Mycroft full stop rather than has more emotional intelligence. I think he works hard to hide his emotions, to be as coolly detached as Mycroft, but he actually feels things keenly. Mycroft is more even, he has emotions of course but they don't rule him. Lots of younger siblings, especially when there is such an age gap, idolise their older brothers and sisters when they are young, so I can see Sherlock trying to push down everything and emulate Mycroft. However, when it comes to recognising emotions in other people, Sherlock does seem a bit blind.

 

Except when he isn't.

 

This has always puzzled me about Sherlock ... He says he's clueless about human nature, he often acts as if he is, but at other times he's blazingly perceptive about people's emotions. Not sympathetic, necessarily, but aware. He deduces John's limp is psychosomatic and recognizes his need for action ("Want to see some more?") He recognizes the cabbie's motivation -- or one of them -- is love for his children. He knows John is disappointed in him when he doesn't show compassion for victims. He knows Molly has a crush on someone, he just doesn't realize it's himself. (Because he doesn't seem to think that anyone could love him, of all people.) He understands how emotions motivate people; that's how he finally figures out Irene's password.

 

And yet he spectacularly fails to understand why a woman would still cherish the memory of a daughter who died. I've pretty much argued all along that Sherlock's root problem is not that he doesn't recognize emotion, it's that he's a narcissist ... nobody's feelings matter to him but his own, and those, he tries to suppress. Until John comes along and he starts to grow out of it. So he can't have really been a narcissist after all, because real narcissists can't change, and Sherlock has. 'Tis very confusing, but real people don't fit into neat boxes either, so it doesn't really bother me. I think we've just been watching a story about a great man's evolution into a good man, with a lot of bumps in the road ... some intentional, some not, but life is sort of like that, so hey.

 

I googled "emotional intelligence" and was provided with this definition:

 

Emotional intelligence (EI) or emotional quotient (EQ) is the capacity of individuals to recognize their own, and other people's emotions, to discriminate between different feelings and label them appropriately, and to use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior.

Based on that, I'd have to say Eurus has little to no emotional intelligence: Mycroft has it, but it is stunted because he tries not to let it guide his thinking and behavior. I think that's his failure in TFP; his choice to keep Eurus away from the family was logical, but it lacked compassion. Sometimes you have to choose between the two, or at least think you do. As Sherlock said, he did his best. But Mummy clearly disagrees with his choices.

 

Now that we've seen the "end", I still think what the series shows us is that Sherlock was walking Mycroft's path, but after being befriended by John he began to walk his own. He's not the same man he was at the beginning of the show, he's on a different journey now than he was then, and it includes accepting that he's only human, after all. With all the good and the bad that implies. Which is pretty mature of him. He wasn't "always" that way, though. I guess Mummy really is a flake. :D

[Carol the Dabbler]

... there's a point in the Star Trek canon ... in one of the movies, I think ... where Spock says that he thinks the Vulcans got it wrong, that eliminating emotions is not the path to creating a perfect being after all.

 

That was the first movie, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, at the end.  Spock tells Kirk that V'ger was an intellectual marvel, but a simple feeling like affection was completely beyond its ability to comprehend.  At the beginning of the movie, Spock was about to complete his Kolinahr training to rid himself of all emotion, but has apparently decided that's not actually a wise course for him.

[....]

 

Now that we've seen the "end", I still think what the series shows us is that Sherlock was walking Mycroft's path, but after being befriended by John he began to walk his own. He's not the same man he was at the beginning of the show, he's on a different journey now than he was then, and it includes accepting that he's only human, after all.

 

When you phrase it that way, there's an amazing parallel between Spock choosing between Sarek or Kirk and Sherlock choosing between Mycroft or John.  (Have we been here before?)

 

So you're saying that Sherlock decided not to pursue Kolinahr after all?

 

[Arcadia]

Well, I wouldn't have put it that way, but ... yeah! I guess so.

[T.o.b.y]

I think Sherlock was wrong when he told Mary that he didn't know anything about human nature. And Mary was very wrong to agree with that. In fact, this is where she hugely underestimates Sherlock, to the point where she believes he needs her posthumous instructions to be able to save John. But Sherlock has done so before, it's how they became friends, and he would have done it again without her help, I am quite sure.

 

If he really knew nothing about human nature, Sherlock Holmes would be a lousy detective. He might not always feel empathy (or he might prevent himself from feeling it most of the time, fearing it would weaken his judgment or make him less effective at his work) but he certainly understands people's inner workings. There's an interesting difference though between the original Doyle character and this adaptation, I think, in that the original imo knew very well he was good at that (with a slight exception, maybe, for women, whom he often claimed were Dr Watson's specialty, but if you look at how he interacts with his female clients and antagonists in the stories, you could get the impression that he actually understands them damn well, all the better maybe for not being distracted by their looks). Sherlock on the other hand seems to believe his own and Mary's verdict. He certainly does make some glaring mistakes, mostly where John and Molly are concerned. Now, these two are people he deeply cares about. Caring, as we know, is not an advantage... Sherlock has so divorced himself from his feelings and especially tried very hard not to get attached to people after what happened to poor little Victor that it's no wonder he messes up with people he loves as opposed to clients and other comparative strangers.

 

His errors with John and Molly are mostly about him denying that he's hurting them when it's convenient for him to do so, by lies and / or manipulation. Other times, he "gets" them pretty well, John especially, as was shown very plainly in The Lying Detective, where Sherlock predicted his actions weeks in advance, and not just ones that could have been deduced by pure logic, for example that he would bring the old cane to the hospital.

[Pseudonym]

I agree Mary is wrong about Sherlock. I wonder though how far he would have gone to save John if John kept throwing it back into his face - at what point do you just have to admit defeat and accept this person doesn't want to be friends with you anymore? Did he only keep trying because his life 'only had worth' because Mary had saved him and that's what Mary wanted him to do with it? I still wonder about the contents of that letter, how nasty and vehement it may have been. 

 

Flipping it around, if Sherlock had died because of Mary's actions - if she had goaded Norbury, and Sherlock jumped in front of her to save her from the bullet, do you think John would have been the same with her? I understand it's a different relationship because they are married with a baby, but their marriage was already pretty rocky, and she had already shot Sherlock and almost caused him to die once. Would he forgive her Sherlock's death as being an accident?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I still wonder about the contents of that letter, how nasty and vehement it may have been.

letter?  Oh, wait, you mean the one that Molly passed along to Sherlock?  I would imagine that to have been pretty icy.  I would suspect that John has enough control of himself in writing that he wouldn't have indulged in much ranting, but cold enough to freeze him, yeah.

 

Flipping it around, if Sherlock had died because of Mary's actions - if she had goaded Norbury, and Sherlock jumped in front of her to save her from the bullet, do you think John would have been the same with her? I understand it's a different relationship because they are married with a baby, but their marriage was already pretty rocky, and she had already shot Sherlock and almost caused him to die once. Would he forgive her Sherlock's death as being an accident?

I can't really wrap my brain around that, because I can't believe that Sherlock would have done such a thing.  On the other hand, if you go back further and suppose that he had shot Mary in Magnussen's office, then yeah, I can see that he might.  But in that case John's relationship with Mary would have been far different at that point, so your question would kinda swallow itself.  Sorry!

[Pseudonym]

The letter John wrote that Molly gave him when she said John would rather have anyone look after Rosie than Sherlock. 

 

Mary didn't seem the type to jump in front of a bullet either. 

[Surelock]

I think Sherlock was wrong when he told Mary that he didn't know anything about human nature. And Mary was very wrong to agree with that. In fact, this is where she hugely underestimates Sherlock, to the point where she believes he needs her posthumous instructions to be able to save John. But Sherlock has done so before, it's how they became friends, and he would have done it again without her help, I am quite sure.

 

If he really knew nothing about human nature, Sherlock Holmes would be a lousy detective. He might not always feel empathy (or he might prevent himself from feeling it most of the time, fearing it would weaken his judgment or make him less effective at his work) but he certainly understands people's inner workings. There's an interesting difference though between the original Doyle character and this adaptation, I think, in that the original imo knew very well he was good at that (with a slight exception, maybe, for women, whom he often claimed were Dr Watson's specialty, but if you look at how he interacts with his female clients and antagonists in the stories, you could get the impression that he actually understands them damn well, all the better maybe for not being distracted by their looks). Sherlock on the other hand seems to believe his own and Mary's verdict. He certainly does make some glaring mistakes, mostly where John and Molly are concerned. Now, these two are people he deeply cares about. Caring, as we know, is not an advantage... Sherlock has so divorced himself from his feelings and especially tried very hard not to get attached to people after what happened to poor little Victor that it's no wonder he messes up with people he loves as opposed to clients and other comparative strangers.

 

His errors with John and Molly are mostly about him denying that he's hurting them when it's convenient for him to do so, by lies and / or manipulation. Other times, he "gets" them pretty well, John especially, as was shown very plainly in The Lying Detective, where Sherlock predicted his actions weeks in advance, and not just ones that could have been deduced by pure logic, for example that he would bring the old cane to the hospital.

 

I think the biggest problem with how Sherlock is portrayed is that it's never made clear how much about human nature he is aware of or vice versa.

 

I think a good example of this would be Norbury. How did Sherlock not know that humiliating her was not going to enrage her enough to fire her gun? He understand how Norbury felt like being an secretary all those years but he didn't know what egging her on about it would do?

 

I mean it's not like Sherlock hasn't been in similar situations before. In The Great Game, when Moriarty had all his snipers pointed at Sherlock and John, Sherlock tried to keep his mouth shut. He knew that wasn't the right time to be a smart aleck.

 

I think Moffatiss never really came to a solid decision on how much social knowledge they wanted Sherlock to have. They wanted him to be lacking in some areas but they also wanted him to be really good in some areas so Sherlock could use them in his deductions. However they couldn't figure out the exact level so they end up writing Sherlock with inconsistent social knowledge. Sometimes he's very good and sometimes he's very bad. It's really random and inconsistent. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

But then real people tend to be kinda random and inconsistent. Heaven knows I do!

[Pseudonym]

I get your point about the Norbury thing being a bit of a mess, he really should have realised goading her wasn't the best plan. I don't know if maybe we're supposed to think he's caught up in his deductions and is just reeling off information without really paying attention to her. It's not like he tends to care that much about people's horrified reactions to him exposing their secrets so I suspect he was only giving Norbury's reactions cursory attention. 

[Arcadia]

I agree ... so much so that I was at first convinced that he was goading her on purpose in order to draw her ire on himself and away from Mary. But after reading what everyone else said (including Moftiss) I have to acknowledge that he was simply being Sherlock, and showing off. But it still doesn't sit well with me, it should have been him, not Mary, who realized he'd pushed the woman too far.

 

As far as Mary goes, I think they just wanted to make her a strong, smart woman so she would be more than a match for the boys. Which is cool. But they took it too far; they made her stronger and smarter than the lead character, without poking fun at her about it. The joke was always on Sherlock and/or John. I really liked Mary's personality but maybe she would have been more endearing to more people if she'd been made to look foolish every once in awhile.

[Surelock]

The problem with that scene is that Mary was standing next to Sherlock and was telling him that he was going to far by egging her on:

http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/88515.html

 

 

SHERLOCK: Can’t have been easy all those years, sitting in the back keeping your mouth shut when you knew you were cleverer than most of the people in the room.
VIVIAN: I didn’t do this out of jealousy!
SHERLOCK: No? Same old drudge, day in, day out, never getting out there where all the excitement was. Just back to your little flat on Wigmore Street.
(Vivian gapes.)
SHERLOCK: They’ve taken up the pavement outside the Post Office there. The local clay on your shoes is very distinctive.
(Close-up of Vivian’s dusty shoes.)
SHERLOCK: Yes, your little flat.
VIVIAN: How do you know?
SHERLOCK (quick fire): Well, on your salary it would have to be modest and you spent all the money on that cottage, didn’t you, and what are you, widowed or divorced? (He focuses in on a plain gold band on the index finger of her left hand.) Wedding ring’s at least thirty years old and you’ve moved it to another finger. That means you’re sentimentally attached to it but you’re not still married. I favour widowed, given the number of cats you share your life with.
MARY (nervously, watching Vivian closely): Sherlock ... 
SHERLOCK: Two Burmese and a tortoiseshell, judging by the cat hairs on your cardigan.
(Close-up of those hairs.)
SHERLOCK (quick fire): A divorcee’s more likely to look for a new partner; a widow to fill the void left by her dead husband.
MARY: Sherlock, don’t.
SHERLOCK (quick fire, his voice rising as he gets fully into his stride): Pets do that, or so I’m told, and there’s clearly no-one new in your life, otherwise you wouldn’t be spending your Friday nights in an aquarium. That probably accounts for the drink problem, too: the slight tremor in your hand ... (there’s a close-up of her slightly shaking gun hand, then a close-up of her mouth) ... the red wine stain ghosting your top lip. So yes. I say jealousy was your motive after all – to prove how good you are ...
(Vivian’s gaze turns to look towards the entrance as Mycroft walks in.)
SHERLOCK: ... to make up for the inadequacies of your little life.

 

 

Yet Sherlock still continued. This is what I mean by Sherlock's social knowledge being massively inconsistent. He can work out Norbury's entire life story but he can't work out that teasing her about it would cause her to fire her gun even when Mary is standing right next to him, warning him.

 

I've heard the theory about Sherlock egging Norbury on because he wanted to draw attention towards himself and away from Mary but I don't think that's how we were supposed to interpret that scene. I mean look at what Sherlock said to Mrs. Hudson at the end of the episode:

 

 

SHERLOCK: If you ever think I’m becoming a bit ... (he pauses and swallows) ... full of myself, cocky or ... (he pulls in a breath) ... over-confident ...
MRS HUDSON: Yes?
SHERLOCK (turning on his seat to face her): ... would you just say the word ‘Norbury’ to me, would you?

 

 

Sherlock implies that he egged Norbury on out of arrogance rather than because of a self-sacrificing plan. But even if Sherlock was planning to try and draw Norbury's rage at himself and away from Mary then why did he not expect Mary to take a bullet for him? Even I could have deduced that. The smartest thing for Sherlock to do in that situation was to keep his mouth shut but he didn't do that and that's why the whole scene felt extremely convoluted.

[Arcadia]

Yup. 'Fraid so. :(
 

I think Sherlock was wrong when he told Mary that he didn't know anything about human nature.

That line jarred me too. Of course he knows something about human nature! But I've elected to think he's being self-deprecating there, as he sometimes is. He's sort of acknowledging that he failed to take John's feelings into account (and I further surmise that's because he's so focused on his own.)
 

And Mary was very wrong to agree with that. In fact, this is where she hugely underestimates Sherlock, to the point where she believes he needs her posthumous instructions to be able to save John. But Sherlock has done so before, it's how they became friends, and he would have done it again without her help, I am quite sure.

Yeah, it would have been enough for her to make a dying request ... save John. She didn't have to tell him how to do it.

[gerry]

Maybe consistently inconsistent? John has said "Sherlock don't" before too in HLV and Sherlock continued what he was saying to Molly. There are other scenes of John warning Sherlock about what he was about to say with Sherlock ignoring him. The xmas scene in ASIB is another. It's usually in the context of Sherlock being in the middle of a deduction and refusing to care about the affect of that deduction on the other person. This is why I have been skeptical of people saying Sherlock has changed by season 4 because the Norbury scene is just another of similar scenes before it. The only difference is that the Norbury scene had tragic consequences to someone close to Sherlock where he couldn't just say forgive me and it could all just be forgotten.

 

When Sherlock is perceptive about human behavior and social cues it's usually in the context of being able deduce what has happened based on his brilliant observations that 99% of the population wouldn't see but he's been consistently shown as clueless when there are no clues to observe, when he'd just have to understand the person's emotional make up to know how they'd react. When he can use science, he is brilliant. Like not understanding why the woman in pink would think of her dead daughter when she's about to die. There is no science for him to figure that out, only empathy. He figured out that Irene was attracted to him not by any subjective feeling but scientific observation: elevated pulse and dialated pupils. For Molly in the Xmas scene, he should have been able to deduce that he was the one she was interested in because there had been clues but I chalked that up to human denial. He didn't understand Eurus' state of mind until he solved her riddle and it said "save me brother".

[J.P.]

Yup. 'Fraid so. :(

 

I think Sherlock was wrong when he told Mary that he didn't know anything about human nature.

That line jarred me too. Of course he knows something about human nature! But I've elected to think he's being self-deprecating there, as he sometimes is. He's sort of acknowledging that he failed to take John's feelings into account (and I further surmise that's because he's so focused on his own.)

 

Actually I've seen it as Sherlock making a self-deprecating joke. Mary got it, and it was the beginning of a wonderful friendship. :D

 

It is said that psychologists can solve problems of everyone - except of themselves. Being a part of a situation distorts your perspective. You can see mistakes made by ppl around you, but fail to see you are doing the same. Been there, done that.

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

I think a good example of this would be Norbury. How did Sherlock not know that humiliating her was not going to enrage her enough to fire her gun? He understand how Norbury felt like being an secretary all those years but he didn't know what egging her on about it would do?

 

This is the scene I dislike the most because it doesn't make sense, like those you mentioned and many more.

I think it's worse than General Shan's scene in the tunnel(?) and that says a lot because I frigging can't stand that.

 

Yeah, it would have been enough for her to make a dying request ... save John. She didn't have to tell him how to do it.

 

Yup.. I feel icky about it too. And the Miss You to be honest.

Did someone mention they did it because they feel bad for killing Mary? I don't agree with that.

Kill off a lovable (arguably) character, the best way is to give sometime to mourn and then be done with it. It could come back in the future but only in very subtle ways like a splash of sadness or memory in another's character's eyes, that's it.

Her being in TLD is fine with me (although it gets annoying when she mentioned the hat so many times, but I do like the last scene when John confessed), however in TFP it's overdone imo. Don't give another closure to a closure. She already had that in TLD. Ending of TFP should belong to Sherlock and John only.

 

But then real people tend to be kinda random and inconsistent. Heaven knows I do!

Maybe consistently inconsistent?

Agreed.

I'd say people who don't react the way they are wired tend to be inconsistent.

Like, if one is naturally cold and dislike small talk, would need to remind themselves that some situations require them to do so, but many other times they forget and go back to default setting, that's how I view inconsistencies in Sherlock.

 

Personally, I got many elbows on the ribs for forgetting to say something nice or give warm greetings to relatives or acquaintances.

Similarly someone I know who works as guest relation in an attraction park said she sometimes snaps and starts greeting random people on the street and being friendly (way to friendly for normal situation) because it's her default.

[Surelock]

Maybe consistently inconsistent? John has said "Sherlock don't" before too in HLV and Sherlock continued what he was saying to Molly. There are other scenes of John warning Sherlock about what he was about to say with Sherlock ignoring him. The xmas scene in ASIB is another. It's usually in the context of Sherlock being in the middle of a deduction and refusing to care about the affect of that deduction on the other person. This is why I have been skeptical of people saying Sherlock has changed by season 4 because the Norbury scene is just another of similar scenes before it. The only difference is that the Norbury scene had tragic consequences to someone close to Sherlock where he couldn't just say forgive me and it could all just be forgotten.

 

When Sherlock is perceptive about human behavior and social cues it's usually in the context of being able deduce what has happened based on his brilliant observations that 99% of the population wouldn't see but he's been consistently shown as clueless when there are no clues to observe, when he'd just have to understand the person's emotional make up to know how they'd react. When he can use science, he is brilliant. Like not understanding why the woman in pink would think of her dead daughter when she's about to die. There is no science for him to figure that out, only empathy. He figured out that Irene was attracted to him not by any subjective feeling but scientific observation: elevated pulse and dialated pupils. For Molly in the Xmas scene, he should have been able to deduce that he was the one she was interested in because there had been clues but I chalked that up to human denial. He didn't understand Eurus' state of mind until he solved her riddle and it said "save me brother".

 

I still don't think this makes the Norbury scene consistent with the other scenes and that's because Sherlock had enough clues to deduce that Norbury would fire her gun.

 

Sherlock knew she had a gun. He knew that he and Mary were at a disadvantage with no weapons. He could tell that Norbury had been frustrated for years and that's why she did what she did. He probably could also tell that Norbury, like all criminals, was disappointed that she was finally caught. He even saw that Norbury was getting angry. How could he not put these clues together and realise that Norbury would shoot if he provoked her?

 

I just think Moffatiss felt they needed to kill Mary off so they didn't think much about the scene. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I just think Moffatiss felt they needed to kill Mary off so they didn't think much about the scene.

 

Or, contrariwise, they had already figured out HOW they wanted her to die, so they were doing whatever they could think of that would arrive at that conclusion.  They've said they always meant for her to die saving Sherlock, so (for example) they wouldn't have wanted Norbury to shoot Mary on purpose.  Norbury had to be intending to kill Sherlock, and Mary had to save him.

[gerry]

I still don't think this makes the Norbury scene consistent with the other scenes and that's because Sherlock had enough clues to deduce that Norbury would fire her gun.

Of course he had plenty of clues as he was in the midst of doing one of his deductions and he often recklessly continues deductions despite the effect it will likely have. He's too busy showing how clever he is which is very consistent with prior scenes as far back as season 1. For the villians he respected as worthy opponents (e.g. Moriarty, Eurus, CAM, etc), he was more careful but in those cases he wasn't able to deduce them as easily as Norbury. If he were able, they wouldn't be considered worthy opponents.

[J.P.]

It seems that from HLV Sherlock is making one mistake after another. How he expects to stay a consulting detective is beyond me.

Resentiments and sentiments they both are… something.

 

Goes home singing the song that suddenly popped up.

[Carol the Dabbler]

It seems that from HLV Sherlock is making one mistake after another. How he expects to stay a consulting detective is beyond me.

 

Same (if not worse) goes for T6T.  And Mycroft didn't do much better in this series.  But I suppose everybody has a slump now and then.

[Arcadia]

I think writers sometimes feel that stories about failure are more interesting to tell than stories about success.

 

Did I say this before? I was thinking it, but I don't remember writing it down ... but it seems to me Moftiss has a bit of a habit of resetting Sherlock at the beginning of each series ... he's learned to be more human by the end of each one, but at the beginning of the next one he's always a bit of a dick. Maybe Moftiss doesn't view the series quite the way some of us do ... maybe they think of it less as an ongoing story, and more as a new adaptation each time? Something like that, maybe.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe Sherlock is like the gal in Fifty First Dates -- when he sleeps, he forgets everything he learned that day. And, you know, he doesn't sleep every night, just once in a while. Sleep is for sissies.