Episode 4.2 "The Lying Detective"

[gerry]

I'm not against happy endings, I just would have preferred it made sense given the content of the episode. Honestly they could have easily done that ending with only one more episode in the season after things had gotten back to normal with John/Sherlock working a case together while wrapping up loose ends from the prior episode. Instead they rushed it at the end of episode about Sherlock and his backstory.

[bedelia1984]

Okay, I have to agree with almost everything you folks said, even though I still really like the ending. How can this be!?!

 

For one thing ... I really, really liked Mary, so I was happy to see that she just hadn't disappeared as if she never existed (I was pleased that they honored her existence earlier in the episode, too, when Big G asked John if he were married.) I thought making her an assassin was silly and over the top, but I loved her personality and the way she interacted with the boys. And Amanda did a great job making me believe she actually could have been an assassin at one time.

 

 

I liked Mary too. I liked that she was in the episodes. But it was a constant reminder to me that they had made a mistake by killing her. Also, the fact they also had Moriarty coming 'back from the dead'- it's stretching things a tad too far at that point. It interrupts the flow of the story because there is only so much a dead character can contribute. It's as if they are saying, man, what a bunch of dullards we have in our collection of living characters, time to bring back the more charismatic dead ones instead! Apologies if this belongs on another thread, but for me it is the same with Eurus, as if they had to add Moriarty to her story to make her compelling? She was strong enough to stand on her own as a character, but they didn't do that,  and so it seems like they lack confidence in her, and that translates to the audience onscreen, wondering is she interesting enough without Moriarty.

 

I think they were a bit afraid of quiet moments this season too, and John probably suffered the most for that, (but Molly did too) because MF's performance tends to live and breathe in those quieter moments. We also missed out on an ordinary moment in the lab with Molly, or the guys just hanging out in the flat. Everything seemed to have to be so dramatic all the time, which meant the truly dramatic didn't stand out  much.

 

Having said all that, I was really glad we got a happy ending, because of the risk that it is the real end. I would want to see the characters all happy, even if i have to fill in a few blanks as to how they got there.

[Inge l-w]

Gases are inert, dead bodies may be inert, arguments cannot be inert: fatuous, overblown, invalid, but never inert! If someone asks a straightforward question and then doesn't like the replies, they don't have the luxury of overturning the board, like Sherlock in the promo photo!

Anyway, I was just watching my second favourite adaptation, Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, producer Sheldon Reynolds, when I noticed that Geoffrey Whitehead also pronounced the DI's name as Le-Strad not Lestraid, like Jeremy Brett did in my all-time favourite series. And Reynolds had Sir Arthur's son breathing down his neck, so if Mr Doyle had heard his famous father ever pronounce the name as he was writing the Casebook of Sherlock Holmes, then Moftiss are right in their choice. Poor old Greg!

Not to mention this Le-strad (Patrick Newell)portrayed Beddington in the Resident Patient, not a poisoner!

Whoever has watched this version must admit that Geoffrey Whithead's long pale hands and eloquent fingers were as good as Benedict's in his time!

[Surelock]

 I do think they marginalized John though when they wrote Mary in to the show like Mary was used to make John interesting rather than the other way around.

 

I think Season 4 is most guilty of this. In Season 3 I believe Mary's character complimented John's character fairly well. Even when Mary was revealed to be an assassin in Season 3 it didn't lead to James Bond-esque fights etc. It led to John accepting that he was a lover of morbidity. 

 

Sherlock said so himself that John liked living in a dangerous lifestyle. He was a doctor who chose to go to war. He became best friends with a destructive guy like Sherlock. He got bored in his post-Honey Moon life due to the lack of adventure. Falling in love with an assassin was in-character for John.

 

John was reluctant to admit and accept this but he finally did so in His Last Vow. That's how Mary's assassin character helped to compliment John's character in Season 3. It didn't cause John to be left behind or neglected like he was in Season 4. 

 

 

 

However one thing we didn't see in Season 3 is an explanation for why John has such a strong morbid fascination. We know he loves the dangerous life but why? 

 

John isn't exactly a normal person. He's more of a guy who has a morbid fascination but seems to want to hide it. That's how I interpret John's typical nice guy persona. I think it's just a cover John uses to hide how he's actually someone with dark interests. 

 

That's how I interpreted John's early career as a doctor. I don't think John became a doctor and then chose to work with the military. I think he wanted to join the military from the get-go. He loved the danger. However he wanted to disguise his morbid fascination so he chose to use a medical career as a ruse to enter the military while still maintaining his good guy persona. 

 

But why does John act like this? I'm not sure. Maybe it's because John had a very twisted childhood that made him dark. Maybe he wants to put it behind him but it's not always that easy. We don't get a through backstory for John and that's something that's probably missing from his character.

 

I'm starting to think that it may have been a wiser choice for Moffatiss to make Season 4 about both Sherlock and John's backstories rather than just Sherlock's backstory. The focus on Sherlock's backstory is one of the reasons why John felt so neglected this season. However if Sherlock and John were trying to find out about each other's past then it would have been a good way to explore their backstories while still effectively developing their relationship.

[Pseudonym]

*Ducking back in* Glad I missed all that drama!

 

I would have loved to know more about John's background, especially if it was dark. Instead of having a girl on a plane we could have had a small boy hiding from his violent alcoholic father, we could have seen his darker side forming and how he learnt to hide it. I imagine teenage John being great at fitting in as one of the lads, but the type of person everyone is friendly with an no one really knows. As far as him being a doctor, the fact he doesn't come across as caring or nurturing could mean he was interested in medicine as a science more than explicitly as a way of helping people. The doctors who fit into that category tend to be the more highly skilled, surgeons etc who have fairly minimal contact with their patients when they are conscious, and I know it's never said in this series that John is a surgeon but I wonder if he has more that outlook, he certainly seems bored stiff as a GP. I think joining the army was a lot about the adrenaline and an escape from the drudgery of normal civilian life. I see him written in fics a lot as a carer and protector, but this season makes me accept he's likely not either of those things. 

 

Having a John centric story would have helped bring him back and make him relevant again - I agree they seem to have run out of things for him to do. 

[J.P.]

Well, a stupid question. What is the time of TLD? It looks like sommer to me, but

1) there is something looking like Christmas lights hanging over the street during the deduction scene. And if you look closer, a part of the trees are quite nekkid.

2) the episode ends with Sherlock's birthday, which is supposed to be 6th of January.

 

Thoughts?

 

BTW, me and my best friend didn't exchange our birthdays until I left Poland. It was some unsaid consensus, hard to say why.

[Artemis]

^ I was wondering that too.

 

Speaking of birthdays, this episode aired on my birthday.  ^_^  I didn't have anything else to look forward to, so it was a nice present.

 

 

[BLS_Pro]

Gases are inert, dead bodies may be inert, arguments cannot be inert: fatuous, overblown, invalid, but never inert!

"Inert: having no inherent power of action, motion or resistance (as opposed to active)" ie it doesn't do anything.

 

An "answer" which doesn't identify the question to which it is supposedly responding doesn't do anything.  It isn't right.  It isn't wrong.  It isn't informative.  It isn't....etc.  In other words, it doesn't serve its intended function.  Absent the connection, it isn't recognized as an answer.

 

It is inert.

 

That is why I asked if it was a stand alone statement or was supposedly a rebuttal to some other post.  If the latter, which one?  And that is a question you still have yet to answer.  As such, the "arguments" remain inert.

 

If someone asks a straightforward question

Again, which "straightforward question" were you supposedly answering?  I asked multiple questions and made multiple statements.  I still don't know which one you are referencing because - as I originally said and have repeated since - your statement doesn't identify one. 

 

That is why I asked the question.

 

and then doesn't like the replies, they don't have the luxury of overturning the board, like Sherlock in the promo photo!

I find it truly fascinating that so many here have projected such passion and pathos (along with so many accusations) onto a simple and straightforward question and the explanation of why it was asked.  

 

Inge - you didn't quote me.  You didn't direct the comment to anyone - let alone to me specifically. Given the subject matter of your post I suspected, but could not begin to tell by your post (since others had spoken on the topic as well, not just myself), that you were somehow responding to something I had said. That suspicion is why I posted to you at all - so as not to ignore your entreaty, if indeed that was the post's intended purpose.  But since your statements didn't contradict any argument I had presented nor seem to answer any of the questions I had actually asked, I ultimately had no way of knowing if you were responding to me, to someone else, or to no one at all. 

 

Thus my question.

 

Now, you seem to indicate your post was directed at me, that you were trying to engage me in a discussion about something I supposedly 'asked', and that you had offered an answer to it.  If that was your intent, then I just need the answer to the simple question I asked and we can proceed to fulfill your intention - without all the "drama" and exclamation points.

[bedelia1984]

*Ducking back in* Glad I missed all that drama!

 

I would have loved to know more about John's background, especially if it was dark. Instead of having a girl on a plane we could have had a small boy hiding from his violent alcoholic father, we could have seen his darker side forming and how he learnt to hide it. I imagine teenage John being great at fitting in as one of the lads, but the type of person everyone is friendly with an no one really knows. As far as him being a doctor, the fact he doesn't come across as caring or nurturing could mean he was interested in medicine as a science more than explicitly as a way of helping people. The doctors who fit into that category tend to be the more highly skilled, surgeons etc who have fairly minimal contact with their patients when they are conscious, and I know it's never said in this series that John is a surgeon but I wonder if he has more that outlook, he certainly seems bored stiff as a GP. I think joining the army was a lot about the adrenaline and an escape from the drudgery of normal civilian life. I see him written in fics a lot as a carer and protector, but this season makes me accept he's likely not either of those things. 

 

Having a John centric story would have helped bring him back and make him relevant again - I agree they seem to have run out of things for him to do. About

 

I want to know more about John as a person before Sherlock too.

 

I agree about him being, as a young man or teenager, a friend to all, but also a bit of an unknown quantity. I don't think he's totally uncaring though, I think at times he could have a nice bedside manner. Well, not when he's practically pulling the patient's hair out, like in TEH! But John is very non-threatening which I find a nice quality in a doctor. I agree that he is very bored by his job, though.

 

I would like to learn more about how John copes as a father, if we get more episodes. Even just one scene that is just him looking after his daughter, with no-one else around, I would like, to gain a bit more insight into that side of his life.

 

About his attraction to danger, isn't it amazing that he has connected to both Mary and Eurus, two women outwardly concealing their highly dangerous natures? It's almost like he's a danger-psychic! I'll be watching his next date quite carefully for signs of a criminal past. I wonder will it be harder for John to trust women, after his experience with Mary.

[Inge l-w]

Dear J.P., given the time frame starting from the end of HLV, where it seems Sherlock spent his birthday in solitary confinement, and moving all through TST, then it's the end of the year when TLD happens, despite the sunny day when they go visiting the hospital, and his three weeks before that would have been in early December, what with the lights and the rain pouring down when The Lady in Red came to reconnoiter.

@BLS_Pro, I have been trying to answer the question posited in your reply in this thread #455. Specifically, focusing on why Sherlock is NOT a monster. This Dr Watson has serious personality issues, not Sherlock.

Frankly, I don't see why you should be so bothered by exclamation marks pertaining to another matter I discussed above, actually pertaining to a totally different series you may not have watched or heard of, but I tried to avoid using any in this post.

[BLS_Pro]

Frankly, I don't see why you should be so bothered by exclamation marks pertaining to another matter I discussed above

The reference to exclamation points was to those included in the comments you made to me, not elsewhere.  But that's immaterial now, for we have what we need to continue the discussion:

@BLS_Pro, I have been trying to answer the question posited in your reply in this thread #455. Specifically, focusing on why Sherlock is NOT a monster. This Dr Watson has serious personality issues, not Sherlock.

Thank you for answering my question. 

 

To recap, so no one has to search back through all the posts to find the Q&A:

 

The question (which was repeated in #455) is in bold below:

 

 

It is also reductive to say his desire to be sociopathic is just for ego driven reasons.

 

An extremely sensitive person might wish to be like a sociopath, just because then they would not feel so much pain, and that wouldn't be about ego at all. In my opinion, there is a little bit of that in Sherlock's reasoning, too.

*Rises hand* This!

 

It's not selfish. Sometimes it's a matter of self-preservation. I'm not talking about psychology books, I'm talking about me and my own experience.

Obviously you disagree.  I'll note, however, you haven't identified why you claim the above supposedly is not selfish ie how the "self-preservation" you identify above is "selfless".  The standard is himself.  He doesn't want to feel "so much pain".  You don't even reference anyone else in the above example.  So how is that specific example about others and not himself?

And the answer you posted was:

In both instances when this Sherlock version descents into the hell of drug-taking, the action starts with a selfless motive: a)Magnussen's pressure against Lord Smallwood for a non-existent case, since the man stopped communicating with the girl immediately after realising she was underage, and

b )At the direct behest of Mary, perhaps weighed down by his feelings about the shooting that resulted in her death.

c) Even his standing there like sculpted out of marble waiting for that bullet to hit, knowing that his observations had driven Mrs Norbury to distraction, is a sign of his willingness to take responsibility for his actions, just like he did in HLV when he found out he had been outwitted by Magnussen, simply in order to keep this Dr Watson and his assassin wife together.

It doesn't get any more selfless! Abnegation is not the trademark of any anti-social personality disorder.

First, I would disagree with your characterization of Sherlock's motives in HLV.  But for the sake of the argument, I'll accept it without dispute.  It doesn't make a difference, one way or the other, to my point. 

 

Second, I agree that Sherlock's actions in TLD are no longer ego driven.  In fact, my argument is that the conclusion of T6T is what causes Sherlock to finally change his standard from ego to empathy - and that TLD is the concretization of this change (and his 'soldiering' in TFP is the evidence that it is a permanent change). 

 

Third, I would again disagree with your characterization of Sherlock as he supposedly 'waits' to be struck by the bullet.  But, since that disagreement doesn't affect my argument, I will again not dispute it.

 

To points A and C I'll simply note - as I noted to others who answered in a similar fashion - that these, different, examples do not address the question about how bedelia's specific example is not one of "selfishness" but one of selflessness.  That was my question - and to this date it remains unanswered by anyone.

 

As I also previously noted, the question is not whether Sherlock can act on ego or empathy.  There is no dispute there.  We agree.  He can and does both (though there is certainly not even close to parity between the number of instances of one compared to the other).  

 

No.  The question is: which is Sherlock's standard?  And before TLD, his standard was ego.  Just as a liar occasionally telling the truth doesn't make him any less a liar - doesn't make him an honest man, because honesty is not his standard - so, too, an egotist occasionally being altruistic doesn't make him any less an egotist.  It doesn't make him an altruist, because others are not his standard.

 

Finally, as I have noted on multiple occasions, Sherlock is not suffering from a mental 'condition'.  Sociopath is what he chooses to be (which is why we call it a "standard").  It is not something beyond his control (not some illness - ie  not some "disorder").  Sociopath is his moral choice.  Upholding it as his standard is what made him a "monster" - a "bad man" as Moffit put it.  Making a different moral choice - choosing empathy - love - others - as his standard (after T6T)  - is what completed his moral journey.  It is why Lastrade declares him to be a "good man" at the end of TFP.

 

I hope that serves to explain my position now.

 

[Arcadia]

The montage/epilogue felt tacked on like it didn't naturally fit the rest of the episode with all the characters happy. There were no meaningful scenes of the Eurus aftermath, there were no real consequences to what was supposed to be a life changing experience...

 

What about the sequences of Sherlock going to play violin with Eurus, and her gradually coming out of her shell ... didn't that sort of serve the purpose? They even showed the Holmes family beginning to heal again, with Mummy reaching out to hold Mycroft's hand. And Sherlock had demonstrated that he's made some sort of peace with Mycroft, by standing up for him when Mummy went monstrous on him. I think those worked for me, at any rate. It's only Molly that was truly left hanging, I thought.

 

I'm not against happy endings, I just would have preferred it made sense given the content of the episode. Honestly they could have easily done that ending with only one more episode in the season after things had gotten back to normal with John/Sherlock working a case together while wrapping up loose ends from the prior episode. Instead they rushed it at the end of episode about Sherlock and his backstory.

 

​Can't argue with that. No wonder there were so many "4th episode" theories ... the three we had just seemed overstuffed. Well, the first and third did. I actually thought TLD was just about perfect.

 

I liked Mary too. I liked that she was in the episodes. But it was a constant reminder to me that they had made a mistake by killing her. Also, the fact they also had Moriarty coming 'back from the dead'- it's stretching things a tad too far at that point. It interrupts the flow of the story because there is only so much a dead character can contribute. It's as if they are saying, man, what a bunch of dullards we have in our collection of living characters, time to bring back the more charismatic dead ones instead! Apologies if this belongs on another thread, but for me it is the same with Eurus, as if they had to add Moriarty to her story to make her compelling? She was strong enough to stand on her own as a character, but they didn't do that,  and so it seems like they lack confidence in her, and that translates to the audience onscreen, wondering is she interesting enough without Moriarty.

 

​I think Moriarty might have worked if they'd found a way to bring him back in the first episode. As it was, the build up to his return was so great, there was no way he was going to live up to it ... and then they squandered him by having him make all those silly "choo choo" gifs and nothing else. Maybe they thought it was funny but I found it fairly annoying. It could have been anyone, it didn't have to be the best villain they've ever had.

 

But I gather when they teased his return at the end of HLV, they didn't really know yet how they were going to introduce him back into the story (except, I assume, they always knew it would be a flashback.) I suspect their idea evolved over the years.

 

I have to admit I really like the scene between Eurus and Moriarty when they met, I wouldn't have minded seeing a little more interaction between them. Such as, what did they talk about, pray tell? :D

  

I would like to learn more about how John copes as a father, if we get more episodes. Even just one scene that is just him looking after his daughter, with no-one else around, I would like, to gain a bit more insight into that side of his life.

Well, they had that scene where he puts the flower in his hair (he says he was playing with her, but it looked to me like he was changing her. ) He was sweet and gentle with her, as we might expect.

[sfmpco]

Just wondering why her name is Lady Alicia Smallwood in TLD but Lady Elizabeth Smallwood in HLV...

[Inge l-w]

Well, if you look through Magnussen's point of view at the hearing in HLV, her name is given as Alicia, but Sherlock first refers to her as Elizabeth in their interview at Baker Str. One more continuity error and a chance to have fun in fan fiction!

[bedelia1984]

 

 

I liked Mary too. I liked that she was in the episodes. But it was a constant reminder to me that they had made a mistake by killing her. Also, the fact they also had Moriarty coming 'back from the dead'- it's stretching things a tad too far at that point. It interrupts the flow of the story because there is only so much a dead character can contribute. It's as if they are saying, man, what a bunch of dullards we have in our collection of living characters, time to bring back the more charismatic dead ones instead! Apologies if this belongs on another thread, but for me it is the same with Eurus, as if they had to add Moriarty to her story to make her compelling? She was strong enough to stand on her own as a character, but they didn't do that,  and so it seems like they lack confidence in her, and that translates to the audience onscreen, wondering is she interesting enough without Moriarty.

 

​I think Moriarty might have worked if they'd found a way to bring him back in the first episode. As it was, the build up to his return was so great, there was no way he was going to live up to it ... and then they squandered him by having him make all those silly "choo choo" gifs and nothing else. Maybe they thought it was funny but I found it fairly annoying. It could have been anyone, it didn't have to be the best villain they've ever had.

 

But I gather when they teased his return at the end of HLV, they didn't really know yet how they were going to introduce him back into the story (except, I assume, they always knew it would be a flashback.) I suspect their idea evolved over the years.

 

I have to admit I really like the scene between Eurus and Moriarty when they met, I wouldn't have minded seeing a little more interaction between them. Such as, what did they talk about, pray tell? :D

  

 

Well, they had that scene where he puts the flower in his hair (he says he was playing with her, but it looked to me like he was changing her. ) He was sweet and gentle with her, as we might expect.

 

 

Yes, I love Moriarty, but they totally wasted him in those little video clips.

 

Him and Eurus are a really interesting combination, yes, and I would like to see more of them meet in the flesh, but when they used his clips in the torture scenes, for me they were just obstrusive.

 

Yes that was a cute scene, the first flower one. But I's still like more. I guess one problem is she was too young, I'd love to see John tell her about her mother. Or him talk to Sherlock about being a Dad, even. Part of me is just super curious what they would do with this non-canon aspect of John's character.

[Pseudonym]

As opposed as I am to this becoming two men and a baby, I thought it was weird that they kept Rosie and then barely showed or mentioned her after T6T. Why bother having John as a father if it's not going to affect the plot at all? I agree there should have been more scenes of him and Rosie, or more of John talking about Rosie at least. It's like with the drone in TFP, Sherlock is the one who mentions Rosie and that John might want to speak to her, John doesn't.

[Surelock]

Let's be honest: you can't really do much with a newborn baby in a detective show. The most you can use a baby for is for a little humour and have the other characters talk about her a bit and we got that.

 

If there's a 5th season, I'm guessing Rosie would be old enough (maybe 5 years old?) to warrant a more plot-centric role. Maybe a kidnapping case involving Rosie?  :P

[Pseudonym]

The thing is, I don't actually want her in it more, I just don't see the point of her if she's not. It didn't really add anything to John's character, we're aware he's a father now, but if we never see him being a father then why bother introducing a baby at all?

[Arcadia]

Yes, I'm puzzled by the inclusion of Rosie too. Maybe to honor Mary's existence?

[bedelia1984]

I think maybe Moftiss are actually too soft hearted to kill both Mary and the baby. They just couldn't do it to John.

[T.o.b.y]

Nobody lays a hand on Rosie! I don't know why, but I like her already. No killing her off and no kidnapping if possible - and if not possible, I hope the kidnappers regret it very fast. She's the daughter of an assassin and an army doctor and the god-daughter of Sherlock Holmes, after all!

 

And I sure hope the writers are soft-hearted. There's a reason I can't watch Game of Thrones. I want this show to be different.

[J.P.]

Yes, I'm puzzled by the inclusion of Rosie too. Maybe to honor Mary's existence?

Maybe they couldn't resist giving the the episode a title The Sign of Three. And the needed a trio for it. On the other hand, couldn't they name the episode The Sign of Two? :P

[Surelock]

The thing is, I don't actually want her in it more, I just don't see the point of her if she's not. It didn't really add anything to John's character, we're aware he's a father now, but if we never see him being a father then why bother introducing a baby at all?

 

Because they're setting up things for potentially next season?

 

As I said before it's difficult to incorporate a newborn baby into the plot of Sherlock. It would be easier if the Rosie was at least a child around 5 years old or so. 

 

Maybe Moffatiss are hoping on doing a stroyline of John's fatherhood eventually. However they have to respect the timeline and have Rosie reach an acceptable age to take part in the action. Rosie has to first be born (which is this season) and will have a bigger role when she reaches the right age (in a later season).

 

I mean imagine if they tried incorporating Rosie into the plot of Season 4 at her current age. What could they have possibly done with her?

[Pseudonym]

I think I like the idea of a small child being involved even less than I like the idea of a baby. :S

[bedelia1984]

Nobody lays a hand on Rosie! I don't know why, but I like her already. No killing her off and no kidnapping if possible - and if not possible, I hope the kidnappers regret it very fast. She's the daughter of an assassin and an army doctor and the god-daughter of Sherlock Holmes, after all!

 

And I sure hope the writers are soft-hearted. There's a reason I can't watch Game of Thrones. I want this show to be different.

 

I do think they are. I'm hoping they have a special affection for the few characters that are their own- which would make both Molly and Rosie safe.

 

The only fly in the ointment is Mary's death. But I don't think they only killed her for canon reasons. I think it was something to do with trying to make John more interesting, rather than have him be eclipsed by her (maybe). If it had been just to adhere to canon, they would have had to kill Rosie too. 

 

 

I think I like the idea of a small child being involved even less than I like the idea of a baby.  :S

 

It isn't the right show for it, is it? Bet they wish it was a Victorian one and they could pack her off to boarding school asap. Maybe when we come back, John will have quietly remarried someone meek that we never see, who just takes care of Rosie? I hope they don't keep up the Molly-as-babysitter storyline. She does enough for everyone already.

 

I want to know more about John as a Dad, but I don't want too many cutesy antics with the kid or anything. A little bit of interaction would be nice, like Sherlock and Archie in the Sign of Three.