Why do that to John?

[LemonCheesecake]

Up until watching The Empty Hearse I assumed there were very good reasons for Sherlock keeping John in the dark about his faked suicide. And then I watched The Empty Hearse... 

 

Twenty plus people knew about the plan, not just Sherlock's family, but also his homeless network. And the reason Sherlock gives John is a fear that he might be indiscreet. When was he ever indiscreet?!

 

I understand that John's grief added to the drama (though if you ask me, he recovered from it so quickly I barely see the point) but couldn't the writers come up with something better than that? Couldn't they say that there were suspicions and John  may have been in danger, anything that would warrant him suffering for two years! But 'I thought you might blab' (can't remember exact words, sorry) must have been like a huge slap in the face for John. I suppose at least it explains why he wanted to punch Sherlock multiple times! I just felt it could have been improved on. Am I missing something?

[besleybean]

Well I guess Sherlock makes up for it in HLV.

[T.o.b.y]

Welcome to the forum!

 

That's a very good question and I'm afraid there isn't really a very good answer. But I'll try...

 

To begin with, it's canon. And Sherlock is still an adaptation in spite of various artistic liberties, so of course they used the original explanation, which, in case you haven't read it yet, I quote here:
 

 

“I had only one confidant—my brother Mycroft. I owe you many apologies, my dear Watson, but it was all-important that it should be thought I was dead, and it is quite certain that you would not have written so convincing an account of my unhappy end had you not yourself thought that it was true. Several times during the last three years I have taken up my pen to write to you, but always I feared lest your affectionate regard for me should tempt you to some indiscretion which would betray my secret. For that reason I turned away from you this evening when you upset my books, for I was in danger at the time, and any show of surprise and emotion upon your part might have drawn attention to my identity and led to the most deplorable and irreparable results. As to Mycroft, I had to confide in him in order to obtain the money which I needed. The course of events in London did not run so well as I had hoped, for the trial of the Moriarty gang left two of its most dangerous members, my own most vindictive enemies, at liberty. I travelled for two years"

 

So this is what they had to go on. Now, one could ask why the heck did Dolye write it that way, and here it's important to consider that originally, he wanted Sherlock Holmes to really be dead. His return was an afterthought, a decision probably driven by a need for money and public demand, from what we know it had little to do with any artistic or storytelling considerations. It wasn't a meaningful plot or anything, Doyle just had to come up with some excuse in hindsight for why Watson didn't know Holmes was alive.

 

This also kind of explains why in "The Empty House", Dr Watson is hardly angry at all. The purpose of the story is to restore the old state of affairs really fast so that Doyle can write a lot more Sherlock Holmes books.

 

Now, with BBC's Sherlock, it's a whole other story. The writers knew from the beginning what was going to happen and they got to decide what to keep and what to change from the original. Also, they had to come up with some way of creating a half-way coherent tale from an old patch-up job of a reluctant writer.

 

It's interesting that instead of making Sherlock look better, either by claiming that of course John knew the truth and was just playing along or by reducing his allies and confidantes to zero, they actually decided to heighten the cruelty of the action by adding Molly Hooper (who does not exist in the original) and "a hundred tramps" plus the Holmes parents to the people who were in the know and also by writing a solution to The Fall that doesn't make it very clear to the audience why tricking John was necessary at all. It wasn't to protect his life or that of the other hostages, because Mycroft's people got rid of the snipers, for example. I guess they found the idea of the main character doing something truly awful and appalling to the one person he really likes intriguing, and so do I, actually.

 

The question remains, but why? I don't know. I have an idea, though, which is rather convoluted and probably not at all what the writers intended, if they ever gave it that much thought to begin with. But I'll throw it out anyway:

 

When John asks "why", Sherlock says it was mostly Mycroft's idea. And you know what, I think that's true. It could of course be that Sherlock is just trying to deflect the blame (like saying "it was Mycroft" when Mummy catches them smoking), but in this case, it just makes a lot of sense.

 

Think about it. Mycroft is the one who really believes in all this "emotion is bad and forming ties with human beings is dangerous" stuff. I don't think he's ever approved of Sherlock's friendship with John - too risky. Sherlock shouldn't have friends. And John really is a pressure point, a weak spot. He's about to send Sherlock into battle with the world's greatest criminal mastermind and his entire organization - from Mycroft's point of view, it's entirely logical and advisable to get rid of John first. So he comes up with a plan that will effectively end all communication and, added bonus, make John so insanely angry at Sherlock if it ever comes to light that the little brother should be safe from the dangers of "being involved" for a long time.

 

I doubt this was ever openly discussed between the brothers, but I suspect that it was more or less understood and that Sherlock even agreed he couldn't afford a friend while he was busy with Moriarty's people. Perhaps he even agreed that he shouldn't have friends at all. I don't know if Sherlock would ever have come back if he hadn't heard John in the graveyard. Or maybe he even changed his mind much later, when the fun and games abroad turned ugly and all he had to turn to was his brother's condescending smile. I bet there was a moment or two where Sherlock thought John and his gun would have come in really handy against those Serbian terrorists.

 

The reason why I think Myroft really had a lot to do with it is how throughout series 3, Sherlock begins to reject his views and kicks him out of his mind palace at one point, deciding to "listen" to John instead, who hasn't really said anything. He's never questioned his brother's philosophy before, so something must have happened to change his mind, and that might well be the welcome he got when he returned from the dead.

 

The conversation they have about the hat and the train guy is very telling. It's basically Sherlock telling Mycroft that he sees some value in friendship now, that he does mind being alone and that he even suspects Mycroft isn't happy with his lifestyle either. It's a huge change.

 

 

Oh, I don't know, I really don't. All I have to offer is "it's canon" and "it was Mycroft". Maybe also a bit of "Sherlock is an idiot".

[Arcadia]

And I have nothing to add except I agree with Toby 100%!

[Carol the Dabbler]

When John asks "why", Sherlock says it was mostly Mycroft's idea. And you know what, I think that's true.

 

Hey, I like that idea -- let's blame Mycroft!

 

Seriously.

[Shadow Dweller]

That would make Mycroft looks 2D and cartoonist instead of cautious. Is Mark Gatiss' act really that bad or is it take a specific mindset to be able to truly understand the nuances that make that character so often misunderstood? I am fond of saying that people are like diamond and it is cannot be more true in Mycroft's case, he is a complex character who we only get glimpses of light reflected on the surface and the occasional flashes of the inner eyes-searing shine from within.

[Arcadia]

He's hard as diamond too, imo. I suppose some people will say he has to be, but I remain unconvinced.

[Shadow Dweller]

Sstt.. he has to, because not many people can keep their wit (and hands) around well-prepared s'more. ;)

[Arcadia]

I concede the point! :D

[Boswell]

That, Toby, was amazing!

 

[Boswell]

That would make Mycroft looks 2D and cartoonist instead of cautious. Is Mark Gatiss' act really that bad or is it take a specific mindset to be able to truly understand the nuances that make that character so often misunderstood? I am fond of saying that people are like diamond and it is cannot be more true in Mycroft's case, he is a complex character who we only get glimpses of light reflected on the surface and the occasional flashes of the inner eyes-searing shine from within.

 

S.D., why do you think that explanation makes Mycroft look 2-d? To me it seems very much in-character. Mycroft is essentially a power centre and all his faculties are directed at sustaining or enhancing that position, with the realisation that human attachment is a weakness that only serves to distract one from one's purpose. His detachment is the result of deep contemplation and high philosophy, and i think he really means it when he says "I'm not lonely, Sherlock" (I almost hear him add, "you will never get it, will you?") He is not lonely because he believes he has transcended the need for companionship, though he is aware of his attachment to his brother which I think annoys him.

I could go on but i'm sure this belongs in another thread so maybe i'll find it and continue there, and I'd really like to know your thoughts on this one.

[Arcadia]

We have a Mycroft thread here, would you like to go over there and start up the conversation? I'll follow it!

[Shadow Dweller]

Yes please, relocate to the Mycroft thread and we will continue this debate there.