Episode 4.2 "The Lying Detective"

[Surelock]

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?

 

 

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. :(

 

 

 

I think the lines in question that everyone is referring to is:

http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/90268.html

 

LESTRADE: Ohh, Christ!

(He lifts his head again.)

LESTRADE: I keep wondering if we should have seen it coming.

JOHN: Not long ago, he shot Charles Magnussen in the face. We did see it coming.

[Oh, way to go, Watson. Why the hell should a police detective inspector, even if he is Sherlock’s ‘handler,’ ever have been told about that 100-year D-notice top secret only-four-people-know-about-this incident?]

JOHN: We always saw it coming. But it was fun.

 

 

I think John wasn't being very specific when he said 'it'. I think he wasn't just referring to the part of Sherlock attempting to murder someone. I think he was referring to the adventure and all the events that made up Sherlock attempting to solve the case. That's what he meant when he said 'it was fun'.

 

It's kind of similar to the time you and your friends did something really reckless when you were kids. Then your parents yelled at you about why you were trying to get yourself killed. Then you reply by saying it's because you wanted to have fun.

[Pseudonym]

I agree Surelock - I took it that way too. He's talking about Sherlock being a bit crazy and like a whirlwind to be around - being with Sherlock was fun, but there was always an edge of danger there. 

[Inge l-w]

Nevertheless, the point is still valid: you don't tell an NSY DI that your best friend committed wilful homicide, which his own brother qualified as murder, because it was FUN! They are not two chums mulling over past events over a beer at the local, they are in a police interrogation room full of digital equipment, in effect giving evidence. But who cares a tuppence, if the specific who happens to be Mr Moffat! ( NO pun intended)

[Arcadia]

I agree Surelock - I took it that way too. He's talking about Sherlock being a bit crazy and like a whirlwind to be around - being with Sherlock was fun, but there was always an edge of danger there. 

 

Agreed, makes more sense than my explanation.

[T.o.b.y]

It seemed to me as if Lestrade already knew the truth about Magnussen's killing when John mentioned it. He (John) did not say it like it was news, more like an "as you know" kind of thing. And if they were discussing secrets, I am pretty sure the recording devices were off at that point and the official part of John's being there was over.

[T.o.b.y]

I have moved the latest posts here where we were actually talking about aspects of The Final Problem to that episode thread:

 

http://www.sherlockforum.com/forum/topic/3549-episode-43-the-final-problem/page-56?do=findComment&comment=121217

[Carol the Dabbler]

Picking up from a previous discussion:
 

It seemed to me as if Lestrade already knew the truth about Magnussen's killing when John mentioned it. He (John) did not say it like it was news, more like an "as you know" kind of thing. And if they were discussing secrets, I am pretty sure the recording devices were off at that point and the official part of John's being there was over.

 
Right, the recorder was off.  Here's that bit from Ariane DeVere's transcript:
 

Greg reaches across to switch off the recording device, then leans back in his chair with a tired sigh and tilts his head back.
LESTRADE: Ohh, Christ!
(He lifts his head again.)
LESTRADE: I keep wondering if we should have seen it coming.
JOHN: Not long ago, [sherlock] shot Charles Magnussen in the face. We did see it coming.

 
It would seem that Mycroft has forgotten how to count, considering that he had said this in T6T:
 

MYCROFT: Once beyond these walls, you must never speak of it. A D-notice has been slapped on the entire incident. Only those within this room – code names Antarctica, Langdale, Porlock and Love – will ever know the whole truth.

 
Note that he mentions only four code names -- presumably himself, Sherlock, Lady Smallwood, and Sir Edwin -- even though there are five people in the room.  Plus he's also forgetting John, Magnussen's staff, and his own assault force.  Probably at least a dozen people that he's not accounting for.  Plus people like Greg, who have been told by those dozen people.
 
By the way, the plots of both "Six Thatchers" and "Study in Pink" could be seen as variations on The Butler Did It, namely The Secretary Did It and The Cabbie Did It.  Background people don't count -- except when they do count.

[Pseudonym]

Poor Mycroft, can only count to four. How did he get to be the British Government with such poor maths skills? But then maybe that explains a lot. 

[J.P.]

That's one of thos little things, that accumulated, make S4 such a challenge to like.

[T.o.b.y]

 

It would seem that Mycroft has forgotten how to count, considering that he had said this in T6T:

 

MYCROFT: Once beyond these walls, you must never speak of it. A D-notice has been slapped on the entire incident. Only those within this room – code names Antarctica, Langdale, Porlock and Love – will ever know the whole truth.

 

Note that he mentions only four code names -- presumably himself, Sherlock, Lady Smallwood, and Sir Edwin -- even though there are five people in the room.  Plus he's also forgetting John, Magnussen's staff, and his own assault force.  Probably at least a dozen people that he's not accounting for.  Plus people like Greg, who have been told by those dozen people.

 

As you have pointed out, the secretary apparently didn't count in his mind. As for the others, he isn't about to admit to Lady Smallwood and Co that the secret is not quite as safe as he would like them to believe, is he?

 

 

[Arcadia]

Yeah, I think there was a plot reason for omitting Ms. Norbury, to illustrate how she was treated as unimportant. Although you still have to wonder about John and the dozen or more armed personnel at the scene............

[sfmpco]

Maybe this as been mentioned before, maybe not, but does anyone know the background music from the dropped tea cup sequence?  It's some famous classical piece, and I want to say Mozart or Beethoven, but perhaps someone can be more specific?

 

The car chase is of course Beethoven' 9th.

 

Nevermind.  It's the andante movement from Mozart's 21st piano concerto.

[gerry]

Tst

[Inge l-w]

And when you take a line out of context, it absorbs the new one: "It is what it is", with all it's emotional baggage, actually comes from the De Niro film, Analyze This, a pure dark comedy.

Concerning the code names, and following Mr Gatiss's love for ACD connections, Sherlock, the quasi-accused doesn't have one. In-joke Antarctica for himself (the Ice-Man), Love for Lady (Elizabeth) Alicia Smallwood, Porlock for Mrs Norbury (the double agent inside Moriarty's organisation and Pike for Sir Edwin, the socialite gadabout. But that's just my interpretation.

[Pseudonym]

 

Can anyone explain to me why, exactly, Sherlock is a monster? Because he has difficulty expressing his emotions? That makes him a monster does it? 

[T.o.b.y]

 

Can anyone explain to me why, exactly, Sherlock is a monster? Because he has difficulty expressing his emotions? That makes him a monster does it?

Because he faked suicide while John looked on and let him believe he was dead for two years? Also because he used him ask a human lab rat at Baskerville and, according to the wedding speech, on other occasions as well?

[Pseudonym]

A monster is pretty extreme though. 'A monster' is something usually used for murderers and sex offenders. 

[T.o.b.y]

A monster is pretty extreme though. 'A monster' is something usually used for murderers and sex offenders.

Well, he did kill Magnussen...

[Boton]

I don't think Sherlock is any kind of a monster, CAM or not.  (If killing CAM is our monster standard, then I still think John is worse for killing Jeff Hope.)  But John is furious with Sherlock in the above scene, and his "talk" with Mary is, of course, a talk with himself.  So, I can see how his logic might still hold Sherlock complicit for Mary's death and for leaving John a single father, and that's the anger we get there.

 

(Eagerly awaiting the "director's cut" of all of S4 including TAB that just shows the stuff that really happened and excludes the stuff that was all in someone's head.)

[T.o.b.y]

I don't think Sherlock is any kind of a monster, CAM or not. (If killing CAM is our monster standard, then I still think John is worse for killing Jeff Hope.) But John is furious with Sherlock in the above scene, and his "talk" with Mary is, of course, a talk with himself. So, I can see how his logic might still hold Sherlock complicit for Mary's death and for leaving John a single father, and that's the anger we get there.

 

(Eagerly awaiting the "director's cut" of all of S4 including TAB that just shows the stuff that really happened and excludes the stuff that was all in someone's head.)

On, I agree with you, actually. Was just listing potential reasons why other people could see him as a monster. I mean, you couldn't really blame them if they did... At least I couldn't. But I love Sherlock all the same of course. He is only fictional after all and not subject to all our real life rules. (Still think what he did to John with The Fall was kind of unpardonable though).

[Pseudonym]

That's the thing, shooting someone in the head is bad obviously, but I wouldn't say it was a monstrous killing. Not compared to some of the true crime documentaries I've watched and desperately wished I could unwatch afterwards, now those people were monsters. The fact it's John talking to himself is the only thing that makes it sort of okay, though it makes me angry John would even think Sherlock was a monster after he jumped off a building to save him. And why? Because Sherlock egged on the wrong person and then Mary leapt in front of him. Even with all of John's fury it's a bit OTT to classify him as a monster. Yea, Sherlock's often 'a bit not good,' but he's hardly monstrous. 

 

John's entire reaction is OTT really. I get, grudgingly, why they did it, but if that was the plot of a fic I'd be rolling my eyes a bit. 

 

Ha, yes, I'd definitely like to watch a 'real' version and see how different it would be. :D

[Boton]

 

On, I agree with you, actually. Was just listing potential reasons why other people could see him as a monster. I mean, you couldn't really blame them if they did... At least I couldn't. But I love Sherlock all the same of course. He is only fictional after all and not subject to all our real life rules. (Still think what he did to John with The Fall was kind of unpardonable though).

 

 

Yes, that's the fun of fictional characters; we get to love people that we probably couldn't tolerate as friends in real life.   ;)

 

I both agree and disagree about the Fall.  I think the behavior was unpardonable, but good old ACD seems to have painted us into a corner; that's one of the elements from canon it would be difficult not to preserve. (Plus, Moffat is basically on record as wanting to give the original Watson an excuse to punch Holmes for that stunt, so at least he got his wish -- three times, in successively more sketchy restaurants.)

[Pseudonym]

I wonder where that would have ended up if they'd kept going? In a sewer somewhere?

[Boton]

I always imagine it ending up at a food truck.

 

[J.P.]

At a snack vending machine.