Episode 4.2 "The Lying Detective"

[J.P.]

I wonder if it's because John is supposed to be someone who misses the obvious. That's part of his role in the show; to make Sherlock look more brilliant by not being able to notice things by himself. Not because he's stupid, but because he doesn't really bother, unless he's forced to. More immediately practical things are more important to him, perhaps, like being able to save a life; so he misses the things he doesn't consider as important?

Funny - you could say exactly the same thing about Sherlock. Only the "important things" are different for them. :D

[Arcadia]

Aha. Perhaps we have finally found the chemistry underlying their friendship.

[gerry]

My response was to the idea that John doesn't know that Sherlock looks to him for how to be a good man. He does because Sherlock told him that in his best man speech. Whether john feels worthy of that pedestal is the story. The first two episodes of this season to me were about how John views himself. His conflict is created precisely because he knows that Mary and Sherlock view him as a good man but that John at that point didn't believe he had earned that esteem. The conflict couldn't have been created if John didn't know how Mary and Sherlock viewed him in their life.

[bedelia1984]

 

 

 

What do you usually look for in writing to determine whether two characters are truly in love?

I guess I would look for something in the dialogue between those characters that suggests they see something in each other that is unique, that they make each other very happy, and also the sense that they have a really strong and lasting attraction? It isn't necessarily all in words, but in actions too. In TV terms, I suppose you would usually see people go to extraordinary lengths for each other.

Isn't part of what you're describing what you sense as chemistry between the actors? That's the most subjective part of entertainment. Writers can write couples or relationships but if the actors don't have that it part between them it may never come across onscreen. I mean many a romantic comedy/dramatic movie has flopped based on whether actor chemistry exists.

 

 

Not in the sense that what I had originally said was that the natural chemistry is good, but I don't think what happens between them in the script shows a very strong or passionate relationship. We just see proposal, coping with Sherlock's anxiety about the marriage, marriage, super-spy storyline, baby, death. The bigger moments we do see seem odd to me- John's proposal is interrupted, but suggests to me that his motivation is that he wants to nail things down because he's afraid of losing anyone else after Sherlock, and as for Mary shooting Sherlock, I'm not sure how we are supposed to view their relationship based on that?

[Pseudonym]

I wonder if he dated anyone else after Sherlock's 'death' or if Mary was the first person who came along and he just kind of latched on because he didn't want to be alone?

[bedelia1984]

Honestly, I was at a loss as to how John chose many of his girlfriends, as even he seemed to have trouble telling them apart from each other at times. Maybe Mary was just a case of the aftermath of Sherlock's death causing John to seek out new companionship? I do think he had a greater bond and chemistry with Mary than any of the others, but then John was a bit of a disaster at relationships.

[Surelock]

 

Especially once John knew about Mary's past, what disappointed me was him forgiving her (which was the first time I was impressed by the fact that he loved her more than I had thought previously) and saying he didn't want to know, and then shortly after treating her like he resented her (in TST). 

 

By 'resent' are you referring to how John cheated on Mary? You sure 'resent' is the right word for that? Just because you cheat on someone doesn't necessarily mean you have hard feelings against them.

[Pseudonym]

I agree he acts like he resents her, and it's not to do with the cheating. It's hard to put a finger on. 

[bedelia1984]

 

 

Especially once John knew about Mary's past, what disappointed me was him forgiving her (which was the first time I was impressed by the fact that he loved her more than I had thought previously) and saying he didn't want to know, and then shortly after treating her like he resented her (in TST). 

 

By 'resent' are you referring to how John cheated on Mary? You sure 'resent' is the right word for that? Just because you cheat on someone doesn't necessarily mean you have hard feelings against them.

 

 

One very small thing is when they talk about naming the baby and the name Mary and John said that he used to like it.

[T.o.b.y]

I agree he acts like he resents her, and it's not to do with the cheating. It's hard to put a finger on. 

 

Well, she did sell him an entirely made-up persona whom he married and then later found out wasn't more than a tiny facet of a much bigger deal. So no wonder he's feeling a bit resentful. And he could never quite trust her, which for a man like John must be kind of disastrous ("trust issues", that's one of the first things we learn about him).

 

Also, Mary is just better at so many things he prides himself on. Smarter, more daring, a better shot. He was a soldier, she was an agent. It's gotta take quite a man to not resent that at least a tiny little bit, even if he may feel petty for doing so.

 

[Pseudonym]

Oh I know why, but I mean it's hard to put a finger on exactly how it's shown. 

[Arcadia]

I don't see resentment, but I do see ... discouragement, maybe? Finding out that marriage is hard work instead of being fun and easy. And finding out that Mary was still willing to lie to protect him was his worst moment, I thought ... I suspect because he thought they should work on their problems as a unit, but also because Mary was doing it to protect him and it could be seen as a little churlish to get mad at her when she was the one making the sacrifice.

 

Or not ... that all seems a bit complex for this show. But I thought it rang as very true, how people discover that marriage isn't always a walk in the park, even if you deeply love the person you are trapped bound involved in it with.

[Surelock]

I suspect we all have different perspectives on John's view of Mary because we're all projecting our own experiences of disillusionment with our significant other.

 

If you ended up resenting one of your significant others in the past then maybe that's why you believe that John resents Mary? Similarly if you didn't ever resent any of your significant others then maybe you don't have as negative of a viewpoint?

[kieranjol]

I suspect we all have different perspectives on John's view of Mary because we're all projecting our own experiences of disillusionment with our significant other.

 

If you ended up resenting one of your significant others in the past then maybe that's why you believe that John resents Mary? Similarly if you didn't ever resent any of your significant others then maybe you don't have as negative of a viewpoint?

 

Hi, I'm bedelia's significant other and I can tell you that you are 100% correct wrong

[Surelock]

 

I suspect we all have different perspectives on John's view of Mary because we're all projecting our own experiences of disillusionment with our significant other.

 

If you ended up resenting one of your significant others in the past then maybe that's why you believe that John resents Mary? Similarly if you didn't ever resent any of your significant others then maybe you don't have as negative of a viewpoint?

 

Hi, I'm bedelia's significant other and I can tell you that you are 100% correct wrong

 

 

I'd like to question you about your relationship but I don't think that's an appropriate subject to discuss on a public forum so instead I'll ask you this: Do you believe John resented Mary in The Six Thatchers? Why or why not? You're a male right so could you read something significant in John's behaviour?

[Surelock]

 

 

What do you usually look for in writing to determine whether two characters are truly in love?

 

 

I guess I would look for something in the dialogue between those characters that suggests they see something in each other that is unique, that they make each other very happy, and also the sense that they have a really strong and lasting attraction? It isn't necessarily all in words, but in actions too.  In TV terms, I suppose you would usually see people go to extraordinary lengths for each other. 

 

Especially once John knew about Mary's past, what disappointed me was him forgiving her (which was the first time I was impressed by the fact that he loved her more than I had thought previously) and saying he didn't want to know, and then shortly after treating her like he resented her (in TST). 

 

Having said that, of course I accept that they did love each other because the show says so, it is just to me sometimes the relationship was a bit bland, which then made it (for me only, I'm sure most would disagree) a bit less tragic when it was over. Even though I liked Mary in the show a lot, though actually I found her scenes with Sherlock sometimes more fun than the ones she had with John.

 

Here's my criteria of whether two characters should be in love:

 

Often in stories or sub-plots about love and romance, I notice that writers follow a certain formula to depict two characters falling in love. Usually the two characters that fall in love have a similar experience that nobody else in their close circles have. It's often the experience that subtly draw the two characters together into love.

 

The most classic example of this would be in Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet are two children that are caught up in their family disputes and are forced to have their lives revolved around it although they had no choice to enter it in the first place.

 

The most recent example I've seen is in the backstory of a woman named Evelyn in the video game Uncharted 4. Basically Evelyn was an American historian and explorer during the middle of the twentieth century but she was looked down upon because she was female. Later after World War II ended, she met a Japanese-American man named Kenichiro who had suffered discrimination after Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbour. Both Kenichiro and Evelyn had suffered discrimination; Kenichiro for his race and Evelyn for her gender. This common experience drew the two of them together and eventually the two of them got married.

 

Mary and John fit this criteria as well. Both Mary and John are suffering from the ghosts of their past. Mary does have regrets from her life as an assassin and John feels depressed not just because he lost Sherlock but also because he may have been able to save Sherlock if he hadn't fallen for the false alarm (Sherlock tricked John into thinking Mrs. Hudson was in danger to get John to leave him alone). 

 

John and Mary satisfy the criteria so I do find their relationship to be believable. I think the main problem in how their relationship is depicted is that we don't see the 'falling in love' part. When we first see the two of them, they're already so much in love that they're ready to get married. It's like when you start watching a romance movie in its last 15 minutes. It feels a bit too rushed. In comparison, I think John's relationship with Sarah is more plausible because at least we saw how it started (too bad we didn't see how it ended). 

 

I think it would have been better if the opening of The Empty Hearse would have shown us how John and Mary first met rather than just have John spell it out to Mrs. Hudson.

[bedelia1984]

 

....

Here's my criteria of whether two characters should be in love:

 

Often in stories or sub-plots about love and romance, I notice that writers follow a certain formula to depict two characters falling in love. Usually the two characters that fall in love have a similar experience that nobody else in their close circles have. It's often the experience that subtly draw the two characters together into love.

 

The most classic example of this would be in Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet are two children that are caught up in their family disputes and are forced to have their lives revolved around it although they had no choice to enter it in the first place.

 

The most recent example I've seen is in the backstory of a woman named Evelyn in the video game Uncharted 4. Basically Evelyn was an American historian and explorer during the middle of the twentieth century but she was looked down upon because she was female. Later after World War II ended, she met a Japanese-American man named Kenichiro who had suffered discrimination after Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbour. Both Kenichiro and Evelyn had suffered discrimination; Kenichiro for his race and Evelyn for her gender. This common experience drew the two of them together and eventually the two of them got married.

 

Mary and John fit this criteria as well. Both Mary and John are suffering from the ghosts of their past. Mary does have regrets from her life as an assassin and John feels depressed not just because he lost Sherlock but also because he may have been able to save Sherlock if he hadn't fallen for the false alarm (Sherlock tricked John into thinking Mrs. Hudson was in danger to get John to leave him alone). 

 

John and Mary satisfy the criteria so I do find their relationship to be believable. I think the main problem in how their relationship is depicted is that we don't see the 'falling in love' part. When we first see the two of them, they're already so much in love that they're ready to get married. It's like when you start watching a romance movie in its last 15 minutes. It feels a bit too rushed. In comparison, I think John's relationship with Sarah is more plausible because at least we saw how it started (too bad we didn't see how it ended). 

 

I think it would have been better if the opening of The Empty Hearse would have shown us how John and Mary first met rather than just have John spell it out to Mrs. Hudson.

 

 

Yes I would have liked to see how they first met too. Maybe one of the issues the writers had was that they knew John would need to not know something big about Mary, so it actually suited them to show us as little as possible of how they met.

 

I do like the idea of them bonding by both having ghosts from the past- something Sherlock shares with them both too. But the problem is, John didn't choose to be with her based on that, and when he found out, he spent a while punishing her for it too.

 

I suppose I would have liked John to have a moment of realisation, when he learns about Mary's past, that actually he has married somebody with whom he has more in common (and his best friend has quite a bit in common with her, too) than he knew- and that fact could have made them stronger Maybe it would have, if they had had more time. I thought it was odd that he seemed to act more like someone who bought a used car and was lied to about the mileage. I guess I didn't like the implication that he chose Mary as some kind of grasping at normalcy- why would that be so important to John, when he so clearly loves a bit of danger?

 

Maybe one of my favourite interactions between John and Mary is actually in this episode (TLD), but it can't count, because she's really just his own mind. I wasn't entirely sure what she meant when she advised John to go and be the man she had believed he could be, I'm not sure how that will could be reflected in the show.

[Surelock]

 

 

I do like the idea of them bonding by both having ghosts from the past- something Sherlock shares with them both too. But the problem is, John didn't choose to be with her based on that, and when he found out, he spent a while punishing her for it too.

 

Well we don't really know why John chose Mary. We never saw how they first met. However I wouldn't say it's impossible if each of them realied that the other was recovering from past traumatic events (Mary should have an idea, at least, because John kept being featured in the papers with Sherlock). I don't think they gave each other all the details or anything but I think they may have been able to tell through mannerisms, behavioural patterns etc. 

 

 

 

I suppose I would have liked John to have a moment of realisation, when he learns about Mary's past, that actually he has married somebody with whom he has more in common (and his best friend has quite a bit in common with her, too) than he knew- and that fact could have made them stronger Maybe it would have, if they had had more time. I thought it was odd that he seemed to act more like someone who bought a used car and was lied to about the mileage. I guess I didn't like the implication that he chose Mary as some kind of grasping at normalcy- why would that be so important to John, when he so clearly loves a bit of danger?

 

I think what you're trying to say is that you don't like how Mary's past was revealed to John? You believe it wasn't used effectively to push their relationship further when it certainly could have.

 

That much I agree with you. I thought it was strange how in His Last Vow, the episode jumped from John arguing with Mary in Sherlock's flat to John and Mary in the Holmes' parents' cottage.

 

As for John choosing Mary at a chance at normalcy, I don't think that was true. I think the actual reasons for why John chose Mary are left quite vague. However I think John got sick of people lying to him and justifying it based on his personality. First Sherlock did it with his 2 year absence and now Mary.

 

 

 

Maybe one of my favourite interactions between John and Mary is actually in this episode (TLD), but it can't count, because she's really just his own mind. I wasn't entirely sure what she meant when she advised John to go and be the man she had believed he could be, I'm not sure how that will could be reflected in the show.

 

Maybe through Rosie growing up with him and saying he's just like how her mummy used to describe him?

[bedelia1984]

 

 

 

 

Maybe one of my favourite interactions between John and Mary is actually in this episode (TLD), but it can't count, because she's really just his own mind. I wasn't entirely sure what she meant when she advised John to go and be the man she had believed he could be, I'm not sure how that will could be reflected in the show.

 

Maybe through Rosie growing up with him and saying he's just like how her mummy used to describe him?

 

 

In theory, that's a nice idea, but in practice I'm not sure that Rosamund is old enough to have any memory of Mary? And as she didn't seem to be speaking yet, I don't see how she will have any verbal memories of her mother, outside perhaps the DVDs (Who knows how many more she has stocked up and being sent from wherever, though personally I think that device was wearing pretty thin by late this season.)

 

I would like to see how John would remember his wife with their daughter, however.

[jadpdr]

Ladies and gentlemen, although the rosy-hued discussion above is charming, I have a serious question to put to you all: after the beating-up of Sherlock ( more than s bit of a domestic!) Dr Watson is taken away by DI Lestrade for questioning. During that session, he admits to a serving senior POLICE OFFICER that Sherlock actually shot Magnussen, but it was fun! And this admission was made on record, too, automatically necessitating DI Lestrade's commencing proceedings against one Sherlock Holmes for willful homicide, whatever noble motives underlay the act. And all this while in TST a special commission was set up to bury the event for a hundred years without the need of a royal pardon.

Seriously, are the creators even talking to each other during script-writing?

One reason in HLV that DI Lestrade was kept out of the picture after a point ( Sherlock getting shot) was because in his official capacity he would have had to arrest the consulting detective.

One more major co#%+p by Mr Moffat, but why, when it was entirely avoidable?

[Pseudonym]

There's also the fact that Lestrade apparently knew all about Mary's past in T6T, when he should have been completely unaware. Also sloppy and easily avoidable. It's almost like they were just looking to give Lestrade more scenes and could only fit them in with exposition. 

 

Also, I'm glad you feel that way about the beating. I've gone on and on about it, but it's shrugged off too much in my opinion. 

[bedelia1984]

I also remember wondering at the time, why John would bring this up? Especially when Magnussen's shooting was all about protecting Mary.

 

Are we supposed to assume Lestrade is now part of some inner circle that lies to protect Sherlock? Not likely, given the fact that he was involved in trying to arrest him only a few years back.

[Redbeard]

Totally true, its ridiculous for John to mention the shooting to Lestrade and also ridiculous to recall that time as being in any way "fun".  Sherlock murdered a man to protect Mary and then Sherlock was nearly sent to his death over it.  Everyone, including Sherlock and Mycroft, seemed pretty traumatized when it happened.  But to John, those were the good old days? What the hell?

[Surelock]

John telling Lestrade about Magnussen was probably just an oversight.

 

But anyone in Sherlock can break the law and get away with it if Mycroft helps them. It's not just Sherlock. Mrs. Hudson was speeding in this episode but got away with it because Mycroft talked to the police officer. If Lestrade found out that Sherlock broke the law, all it would take is a phone call from Mycroft to stop him from taking any action.

[Arcadia]

Totally true, its ridiculous for John to mention the shooting to Lestrade and also ridiculous to recall that time as being in any way "fun".  Sherlock murdered a man to protect Mary and then Sherlock was nearly sent to his death over it.  Everyone, including Sherlock and Mycroft, seemed pretty traumatized when it happened.  But to John, those were the good old days? What the hell?

 

I took that to mean John was being sarcastic. But given Moffat's view on CAM's demise ... maybe not. :(