Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[Pseudonym]

I thought they already had - of course she was using a code name there. ;)

 

Hmmm, maybe... so we do know more about Mummy's past. :D

 

I don't fancy her being a spy though, seems a bit too Agent Carter. I can't quite put my finger on how I'd like her, I suppose a female Sherlock would be the closest really, though she's able to use her acting skills to seem sweet and innocent. Or maybe when she's a bit older and a maths professor who can solve all manner of clues and puzzles for a slightly bumbling copper/agent (Papa Holmes again). She doesn't deign to join SIS or Scotland Yard herself, feels it's beneath her, though gets dragged into scrapes and capers against her will. Someone needs to write a badass young Mummy Holmes fic :D

[BLS_Pro]

Someone found the lyrics to Eurus' song. Still no indication of whether it's an original song (i.e., written for the show), a traditional song, or what on earth it means....

 

 

I that am lost, oh who will find me?

Deep down below the old beech tree

Help succor me now the east winds blow

Sixteen by six, brother, and under we go!

 

Be not afraid to walk in the shade

Save one, save all, come try!

My steps - five by seven

Life is closer to Heaven

Look down, with dark gaze, from on high.

 

Before he was gone - right back over my (h)ill

Who now will find him?

Why, nobody will

Doom shall I bring to him, I that am queen

Lost forever, nine by nineteen.

 

Without your love he’ll be gone before

Save pity for strangers, show love the door

My soul seek the shade of my willow’s bloom

Inside, brother mine–

Let Death make a room.

So we have a seeming song about a murderous sibling taunting and torturing her brother by threatening his best friend with death.  But it turns out that is not the message at all.  Instead it must be translated - to be understood for what it really is - the sister asking the brother to save her by loving her.

 

Just like her two "personalities" throughout the episode.  You need to understand Eurus?  This is the explanation.  The one is the means to the other.

 

The writers were quite thorough in making the theme apply to every aspect of what they wrote.

 

[BLS_Pro]

But to me, the logical reason that Eurus stopped is not remorse or reform, but because if Sherlock died (shot himself) the game is over, and like Moriarty, the game is what she loves. And that means she is now just biding her time, but would look forward to tormenting him again in the future.

Her love isn't for the game.  Her love is for Sherlock ("my favorite").  The purpose of the game is to get Sherlock to come and save her soul (to love her in return).  That was Eurus' purpose from the start - made explicit in her code, which Sherlock finally breaks - ie finally understands.

 

That is why she panics.  If Sherlock dies, SHE is forever lost.  She would be in the exact same position as John in TLD.  Like John, she needs to be saved by Sherlock.

[bedelia1984]

 

But to me, the logical reason that Eurus stopped is not remorse or reform, but because if Sherlock died (shot himself) the game is over, and like Moriarty, the game is what she loves. And that means she is now just biding her time, but would look forward to tormenting him again in the future.

Her love isn't for the game.  Her love is for Sherlock ("my favorite").  The purpose of the game is to get Sherlock to come and save her soul (to love her in return).  That was Eurus' purpose from the start - made explicit in her code, which Sherlock finally breaks - ie finally understands.

 

 

I suppose I see Sherlock as being more her favourite toy, than somebody that she loves in the sense that most people do. But I can see your side too.

 

I see her as more envious of the people he loves, and of him for being able to love them, than having those feelings herself. I do think it means something to her to be loved, -she sees a value to it, it is a commodity to her, and she wants it- I'm just not sure she is capable of returning it.

[gerry]

 

 

But to me, the logical reason that Eurus stopped is not remorse or reform, but because if Sherlock died (shot himself) the game is over, and like Moriarty, the game is what she loves. And that means she is now just biding her time, but would look forward to tormenting him again in the future.

Her love isn't for the game. Her love is for Sherlock ("my favorite"). The purpose of the game is to get Sherlock to come and save her soul (to love her in return). That was Eurus' purpose from the start - made explicit in her code, which Sherlock finally breaks - ie finally understands.

That is why she panics. If Sherlock dies, SHE is forever lost.

I do agree that she really loves Sherlock in as so far as she can feel love but the first four rooms weren't necessary if all she wanted to do was get him to solve the code.

[Redbeard]

 

I thought they already had - of course she was using a code name there. ;)

 

Hmmm, maybe... so we do know more about Mummy's past. :D

 

I don't fancy her being a spy though, seems a bit too Agent Carter. I can't quite put my finger on how I'd like her, I suppose a female Sherlock would be the closest really, though she's able to use her acting skills to seem sweet and innocent. Or maybe when she's a bit older and a maths professor who can solve all manner of clues and puzzles for a slightly bumbling copper/agent (Papa Holmes again). She doesn't deign to join SIS or Scotland Yard herself, feels it's beneath her, though gets dragged into scrapes and capers against her will. Someone needs to write a badass young Mummy Holmes fic :D

 

 

I like this.  I really do!  Wish I had the skill to write it. Will mummy Holmes maiden name be revealed to be...Moriarty? (tie-in to the math text book lol)

 

(So with a nod to Emma Peel I now envision this character named Emma Moriarty, brilliant math professor from a crazy family who solves crimes and has adventures until she meets the charming Mr. Holmes and settles down to raise a family).  This feels cathartic.  

[Pseudonym]

Ha, and James Moriarty is actually Richard Brook who chose his criminal name based on a super-genius he heard of and idolised as a child... who he doesn't realise got married and became a Holmes. Or he does realise and that's why he's after Sherlock - jealousy. ;)

[BLS_Pro]

I like the idea that the whole episode is an exercise in existentialism.  Unfortunately, given that the show has proved to be a massive cash cow, I can't see the BBC funding anything on that basis.  I think it is rather like Dr Who - complicated and interesting when it works, contradictory and unconvincing when it doesn't.

One - that's not how the funding works for episodes of a show.

Two - you presume the BBC was told that was the theme.  Again, that's not how it works.

Three - as I pointed out elsewhere, the same writer (Moffat) wrote the same theme into another Who episode (Heaven Sent).  It shows up in a lot of his stuff.

 

 

 

It's hard to imagine that Eurus is pining for Sherlock's love, particularly as she murdered his best friend, tried to burn down the family home (presumably, given the "RIP Sherlock" notes, with him inside it) and tried to force him to kill someone he loved.

  One does not have to "imagine" it.  The writers SHOW it explicitly in her song, which others see (and can't see PAST) as simple 'murderous insanity' but is explicitly her plea to be loved.  And they show it explicitly when he finds her in her room. 

 

No imagination required.  The writers hit everyone over the head with it!

 

 

I can't imagine that all Moriarty wanted was a big cuddle

He didn't.  He had a different solution to The Final Problem.  His solution wasn't love.  His solution was cannibalism.

[BLS_Pro]

 

 

But to me, the logical reason that Eurus stopped is not remorse or reform, but because if Sherlock died (shot himself) the game is over, and like Moriarty, the game is what she loves. And that means she is now just biding her time, but would look forward to tormenting him again in the future.

Her love isn't for the game. Her love is for Sherlock ("my favorite"). The purpose of the game is to get Sherlock to come and save her soul (to love her in return). That was Eurus' purpose from the start - made explicit in her code, which Sherlock finally breaks - ie finally understands.

That is why she panics. If Sherlock dies, SHE is forever lost.

I do agree that she really loves Sherlock in as so far as she can feel love but the first four rooms weren't necessary if all she wanted to do was get him to solve the code.

I would suggest you are missing something.  For a normal individual, it wouldn't have been "necessary" to threaten his childhood best friend with murder to get Sherlock to solve the code either.

 

 

[J.P.]

I suppose I see Sherlock as being more her favourite toy, than somebody that she loves in the sense that most people do. But I can see your side too.

 

I see her as more envious of the people he loves, and of him for being able to love them, than having those feelings herself. I do think it means something to her to be loved, -she sees a value to it, it is a commodity to her, and she wants it- I'm just not sure she is capable of returning it.

 

And I imagine the absolutely devastating longing for being like everyone else. To be able to love and be happy about little things people usually do. Singing songs, playing games, having a chat over a beer. Maybe she was able to see that she never will be able to be like that. Makes the suffering even worse.

[gerry]

 

 

 

 

But to me, the logical reason that Eurus stopped is not remorse or reform, but because if Sherlock died (shot himself) the game is over, and like Moriarty, the game is what she loves. And that means she is now just biding her time, but would look forward to tormenting him again in the future.

Her love isn't for the game. Her love is for Sherlock ("my favorite"). The purpose of the game is to get Sherlock to come and save her soul (to love her in return). That was Eurus' purpose from the start - made explicit in her code, which Sherlock finally breaks - ie finally understands.

That is why she panics. If Sherlock dies, SHE is forever lost.

I do agree that she really loves Sherlock in as so far as she can feel love but the first four rooms weren't necessary if all she wanted to do was get him to solve the code.

I would suggest you are missing something. For a normal individual, it wouldn't have been "necessary" to threaten his childhood best friend with murder to get Sherlock to solve the code either.

 

What I meant was getting him to solve the code wasn't her sole goal for the first four rooms. She was also showing Sherlock how well she knew him by pushing all of his emotional buttons with context.

[BLS_Pro]

 

I suppose I see Sherlock as being more her favourite toy, than somebody that she loves in the sense that most people do. But I can see your side too.

 

I see her as more envious of the people he loves, and of him for being able to love them, than having those feelings herself. I do think it means something to her to be loved, -she sees a value to it, it is a commodity to her, and she wants it- I'm just not sure she is capable of returning it.

Eurus IS envious (to the point of 'murderous jealousy') of the people he loves.  She wants HIM to love her too.  She wants a relationship with Sherlock, like they have with him.  Sherlock doesn't give that to her.  He gives it to others and leave her abandoned and alone.

 

Eurus is the example of unrequited love.  In this regard, Molly is a mirror to Eurus.  The Molly 'torture' scene is supposed to show us (and Sherlock) how others can be deeply hurt when the love a person has for another is not returned by the object of that love.  Molly and Eurus feel the SAME thing for Sherlock.  They BOTH love him.  It is "true" of both.  By making Sherlock recognize that fact in regard to Molly, she gives him the clue that unrequited love is her problem as well - and thus is a clue to solving the final problem and The Final Problem.

 

 

[BLS_Pro]

 

 

 

 

But to me, the logical reason that Eurus stopped is not remorse or reform, but because if Sherlock died (shot himself) the game is over, and like Moriarty, the game is what she loves. And that means she is now just biding her time, but would look forward to tormenting him again in the future.

Her love isn't for the game. Her love is for Sherlock ("my favorite"). The purpose of the game is to get Sherlock to come and save her soul (to love her in return). That was Eurus' purpose from the start - made explicit in her code, which Sherlock finally breaks - ie finally understands.

That is why she panics. If Sherlock dies, SHE is forever lost.

I do agree that she really loves Sherlock in as so far as she can feel love but the first four rooms weren't necessary if all she wanted to do was get him to solve the code.

I would suggest you are missing something. For a normal individual, it wouldn't have been "necessary" to threaten his childhood best friend with murder to get Sherlock to solve the code either.

 

What I meant was getting him to solve the code wasn't her sole goal for the first four rooms. She was also showing Sherlock how well she knew him by pushing all of his emotional buttons with context.

 

She was giving him clues about HERSELF (what her nightmare world was like absent the meaning love gives to everything - showing him the difference between them, a difference attributable to the fact HE has that love and she NEVER did "I never had a best friend"). 

 

In other words, she isn't showing "how well she knew him" but showing that he does NOT know her.

 

Eurus is giving Sherlock all these clues so he can solve her code.  And she is making them life threatening to give him impetus TO solve the code - as she had done from the start as a child.  That is how important it is to her.  Her lack of love is an existential threat to her, just as her threats against others are existential.  It is her (and the writers) saying that they are the same.  One cannot live without love.  The form of death differs, but it is death nonetheless (and one could argue that those who die swiftly are given a "mercy", rather than the slow torture of life without love).

 

The individual games are but a mirror of the first game.

 

[bedelia1984]

 

 

I suppose I see Sherlock as being more her favourite toy, than somebody that she loves in the sense that most people do. But I can see your side too.

 

I see her as more envious of the people he loves, and of him for being able to love them, than having those feelings herself. I do think it means something to her to be loved, -she sees a value to it, it is a commodity to her, and she wants it- I'm just not sure she is capable of returning it.

Eurus IS envious (to the point of 'murderous jealousy') of the people he loves.  She wants HIM to love her too.  She wants a relationship with Sherlock, like they have with him.  Sherlock doesn't give that to her.  He gives it to others and leave her abandoned and alone.

 

Eurus is the example of unrequited love.  In this regard, Molly is a mirror to Eurus.  The Molly 'torture' scene is supposed to show us (and Sherlock) how others can be deeply hurt when the love a person has for another is not returned by the object of that love.  Molly and Eurus feel the SAME thing for Sherlock.  They BOTH love him.  It is "true" of both.  By making Sherlock recognize that fact in regard to Molly, she gives him the clue that unrequited love is her problem as well - and thus is a clue to solving the final problem and The Final Problem.

 

Well yes as I have said she wants love, but where I differ is that I don't think her main motivation his that she loves him. I think love puzzles her, she doesn't understand it, and she wants to take it apart, rather like a child picking the legs off ants. I do think her murderous impulses are a stronger motivator than her unrequited love- like the three men she drowns (the Garridebs)- there is nothing about that stemming from love, in my opinion.

 

It is important not to muddy the waters between what Sherlock might have done as a child and what he does as an adult too. In the past, yes he probably did make her feel left out (though the bigger thing making her feel left out was that she was abnormal and incapable of reading emotions). As an adult, she could have given him a chance. She met him as a stranger, and he treated her decently. If she had ever reached out to him, there was a good chance he would have been receptive. I don't buy that his lack of attention now is what is driving her. Don't forget, she caused his trauma, and caused him to have to forget her to function- so her difficulty is more in accepting the consequences of her actions, than it is with anything he has done or is doing.

 

This is quite common in people who want connection, but find have difficulty reading emotions- they force it so hard that they push away the one thing they want. It's sad, but it's not anyone's fault, or because they are not loved. 

 

What I meant was getting him to solve the code wasn't her sole goal for the first four rooms. She was also showing Sherlock how well she knew him by pushing all of his emotional buttons with context.

 

 

This is how I see it too. She's never grown up, she's still that girl who wants a reaction, screaming or laughing, it won't make much difference to her. Though I don't see her having much in the way of comedy skills.

[BLS_Pro]

 

Well yes as I have said she wants love, but where I differ is that I don't think her main motivation his that she loves him.

On what basis in the story do you make this claim?  (BTW - her main motivation is that she wants and needs love.  Sherlock is simply WHO she loves and thus whom she desires to be loved by - just like Molly or anyone else.)  It sounds like the below is an example of why you make this claim:

 

 

I do think her murderous impulses are a stronger motivator than her unrequited love- like the three men she drowns (the Garridebs)- there is nothing about that stemming from love, in my opinion.

The purpose of the three men is to show Sherlock that, absent his love - absent "context" - there is no way TO feel differently about their fates.  Whether they live or die has no meaning absent love.  Which one lives or dies (justice) has no meaning absent love.  Love is WHAT enables differentiation.  Without it, so the philosophy goes, all reality is the same. 

 

That is why ANY choice between them feels the same to her, as she explicitly states.  There is no difference between them to her.  She is the Hungry Donkey and they are the equal bales of hay.  She has NO context for them.  Any choice between them doesn't make a difference to her because - absent love - they are NOT different. 

 

All reality is all the same to her BECAUSE she has NO "context".  Sherlock, however, CAN choose between them.  HE has "context".  She saw that as a child.  He had a best friend.  He had context and thus life had meaning for him.  She was desperate for that context, knowing without it she was just a tortured child, alone and afraid all the time ( which they show explicitly).  She was "doomed" without him.

 

The three men 'game' was just another clue from her to Sherlock to show him WHY she was lost - WHAT her world was like absent his love.

[Slithytove]

 

I like the idea that the whole episode is an exercise in existentialism.  Unfortunately, given that the show has proved to be a massive cash cow, I can't see the BBC funding anything on that basis.  I think it is rather like Dr Who - complicated and interesting when it works, contradictory and unconvincing when it doesn't.

One - that's not how the funding works for episodes of a show.

Two - you presume the BBC was told that was the theme.  Again, that's not how it works.

Three - as I pointed out elsewhere, the same writer (Moffat) wrote the same theme into another Who episode (Heaven Sent).  It shows up in a lot of his stuff.

 

 

 

It's hard to imagine that Eurus is pining for Sherlock's love, particularly as she murdered his best friend, tried to burn down the family home (presumably, given the "RIP Sherlock" notes, with him inside it) and tried to force him to kill someone he loved.

  One does not have to "imagine" it.  The writers SHOW it explicitly in her song, which others see (and can't see PAST) as simple 'murderous insanity' but is explicitly her plea to be loved.  And they show it explicitly when he finds her in her room. 

 

No imagination required.  The writers hit everyone over the head with it!

 

 

I can't imagine that all Moriarty wanted was a big cuddle

He didn't.  He had a different solution to The Final Problem.  His solution wasn't love.  His solution was cannibalism.

 

I'm well aware that funding isn't based on "what is the essential nature of this story?" but a mainstream BBC programme, which hopes to capture a large UK audience and also produce lucrative overseas sales, is hardly likely to be based on the premise that the world is meaningless and inexplicable.  Even less likely if that programme is detective fiction, given that its whole rationale is to solve mysteries!  Moffat may like complex storylines and long narrative arcs but he is hardly Jean-Paul Sartre.

 

The premise that Eurus just wants to be loved by Sherlock is a facile plot resolution.  Not only does it make very little psychological sense - inside every psychopath is a child who just wants to be loved? - but it feels fake from an artistic point of view.  Eurus shows every sign of a very severe anti social personality disorder from earliest childhood, either intending to kill Victor or being indifferent to his death, and expressing a death wish for Sherlock before committing arson in her own home.  Presumably she intended him to die and, based on her previous behaviour, was probably indifferent to the fate of the others.  As an adult, we know she was responsible for the murders of at least six people, whom she killed without a shred of emotion.  So far, so textbook.  And then she turns into a little girl weeping for the love of her brother?  If I thought the website would let me, I would use a very rude word to express my opinion of that plotline.  It feels like a cheap way out.

 

The only way that storyline can make any sense is if Eurus has two personalities and one of them is a psychopathic killer.  This is a popular fictional use of dissociative identity disorder, of course, the latest being James McAvoy's film "Split", despite objections from mental health professionals who say there is no evidence that people with DID are prone to violence.  Assuming that this is Eurus's condition, how does one of her personalities manage to be aware of the other one and to exploit it as a way to increase the pressure on Sherlock?  Even if one personality is aware - as adult-Eurus is aware of child-Eurus but not vice versa - it seems very unlikely that she could switch at will for the purpose of pressurising her brother.  It's another aspect of the story which requires a massive suspension of belief.

 

I do love the show as a whole, even though you could drive a bus through the plot holes, and I'm prepared to suspend belief pretty often - even to the extent of believing that Sherlock's heart could magically restart several minutes after flatlining!  Even when it was at its silliest, it had emotional resonance that held the story together.  It just didn't work in TFP.  The revelation about Eurus felt, to me, as if the writers had written themselves into a corner and had to find a way out.  It happens, sometimes.

[gerry]

This is how I see it too. She's never grown up, she's still that girl who wants a reaction, screaming or laughing, it won't make much difference to her. Though I don't see her having much in the way of comedy skills.

Yes I saw her motivation for the first four rooms as showing off to Sherlock and proving how much she understands him and all of his relationships/method of coping. In return, she wanted Sherlock to understand her and solve the code.

[BLS_Pro]

 

I'm well aware that funding isn't based on "what is the essential nature of this story?" but a mainstream BBC programme, which hopes to capture a large UK audience and also produce lucrative overseas sales, is hardly likely to be based on the premise that the world is meaningless and inexplicable. 

The premise (theme) is NOT "the world is meaningless and inexplicable", but, to put it in trite terms: "love is what makes the world go 'round" - or as Benedict put it: "Love conquers all".  These are premises "mainstream BBC" programming most certainly WOULD and DOES fund.

 

The theme of the show is that Love is all important - IT is WHAT gives meaning to life.

 

 

Even less likely if that programme is detective fiction, given that its whole rationale is to solve mysteries! 

HOW to FIND meaning in a "meaningless and inexplicable" world is THE biggest mystery for existentalism.  It is The Final Problem to be solved.  So "detective fiction" is the PERFECT programme.  Who better than the world's greatest detective to solve it? 

 

 

Not only does it make very little psychological sense - inside every psychopath is a child who just wants to be loved? - but it feels fake from an artistic point of view.

Which is why you should check your premises.  Their premise is NOT "inside every psychopath is a child who just wants to be loved".  That is NOT, for example, what they show of Moriarty, now is it?  NO.  So you know that is not their philosophy.

 

 

And then she turns into a little girl weeping for the love of her brother?

She didn't "turn" into a little girl lost, but had ALWAYS been a little girl lost, seeking the love of her brother - seeking to be saved from a fate WORSE than death.

 

 

The only way that storyline can make any sense is if Eurus has two personalities

  Not true.

[bedelia1984]

 

 

Well yes as I have said she wants love, but where I differ is that I don't think her main motivation his that she loves him.

On what basis in the story do you make this claim?  It sounds like the below is an example of why you make this claim:

 

 

I do think her murderous impulses are a stronger motivator than her unrequited love- like the three men she drowns (the Garridebs)- there is nothing about that stemming from love, in my opinion.

The purpose of the three men is to show Sherlock that, absent his love - absent "context" - there is no way TO feel differently about their fates.  Whether they live or die has no meaning absent love.  Which one lives or dies (justice) has no meaning absent love.  Love is WHAT enables differentiation.  Without it, all reality is the same. 

 

 

But the context doesn't need to be love, it only needs to be any emotion at all full stop. 

 

For the record, I think you are on to something with the existentialism idea- but it is the context that needs tweaking. Eurus's existentilaist angst is about the difficulty of being, for her, in a world full of people who can and do love each other, and who feel things and understand the feelings of each other. In short, a lot of her rage stems from profound awareness of inadequacy. Which is a cause of a lot of murders, in my opinion. 

 

 

 

....

 

The premise that Eurus just wants to be loved by Sherlock is a facile plot resolution.  Not only does it make very little psychological sense - inside every psychopath is a child who just wants to be loved? - but it feels fake from an artistic point of view.  Eurus shows every sign of a very severe anti social personality disorder from earliest childhood, either intending to kill Victor or being indifferent to his death, and expressing a death wish for Sherlock before committing arson in her own home.  Presumably she intended him to die and, based on her previous behaviour, was probably indifferent to the fate of the others.  As an adult, we know she was responsible for the murders of at least six people, whom she killed without a shred of emotion.  So far, so textbook.  And then she turns into a little girl weeping for the love of her brother?  If I thought the website would let me, I would use a very rude word to express my opinion of that plotline.  It feels like a cheap way out.

 

The only way that storyline can make any sense is if Eurus has two personalities and one of them is a psychopathic killer.  This is a popular fictional use of dissociative identity disorder, of course, the latest being James McAvoy's film "Split", despite objections from mental health professionals who say there is no evidence that people with DID are prone to violence.  Assuming that this is Eurus's condition, how does one of her personalities manage to be aware of the other one and to exploit it as a way to increase the pressure on Sherlock?  Even if one personality is aware - as adult-Eurus is aware of child-Eurus but not vice versa - it seems very unlikely that she could switch at will for the purpose of pressurising her brother.  It's another aspect of the story which requires a massive suspension of belief.

 

I do love the show as a whole, even though you could drive a bus through the plot holes, and I'm prepared to suspend belief pretty often - even to the extent of believing that Sherlock's heart could magically restart several minutes after flatlining!  Even when it was at its silliest, it had emotional resonance that held the story together.  It just didn't work in TFP.  The revelation about Eurus felt, to me, as if the writers had written themselves into a corner and had to find a way out.  It happens, sometimes.

 

 

It could be the case that she has a split personality, but I find the idea too cheesey and been-there-before for Sherlock. And also, I don't necessarily believe that she has a 'good' personality.

 

I think perhaps Eurus relented because her game was lost. The endgame was Sherlock kills someone he loves, and then she reveals he has done it for no good reason. By opting out, he ruined that for her. She couldn't devastate him and leave him with lifelong guilt as she had been planning. She tried again with John, but her heart wasn't in it, because she couldn't make Sherlock the bad guy any more. She was left out all over again.

 

I wonder if part of her was hoping to somehow make Sherlock more like her, a killer, so there could be two of them? She almost pulled that off (well to a small degree) the first time, with Victor, when he had tried to cut himself off emotionally afterwards. But it was never going to work, not really. Pretty much everything Eurus tried was doomed because she had no real ability to empathise with the people around her, despite all her intellect.

 

I do still prefer TLD, but the last one has proved such excellent fodder for debate that I'm starting to like it all over again. Moftiss just get me every time.

 

ETA:

 

 

This is how I see it too. She's never grown up, she's still that girl who wants a reaction, screaming or laughing, it won't make much difference to her. Though I don't see her having much in the way of comedy skills.

Yes I saw her motivation for the first four rooms as showing off to Sherlock and proving how much she understands him and all of his relationships/method of coping. In return, she wanted Sherlock to understand her and solve the code.

 

 

This makes sense to me. She wants understanding, and help from Sherlock. And maybe love too.

 

Someone has mentioned the mother being asleep, and there is certainly something to that. Like, perhaps the boys were always her mother's favourites, and she could see that and resented it. It might partly explain why she was so horrible to them too. Of course, we would need to see more to know for sure. I'm so curious as to what Mummy Holmes, genius, was up to whilst all this was going on, that led to so much being buried and swept aside.

[BLS_Pro]

The revelation about Eurus felt, to me, as if the writers had written themselves into a corner and had to find a way out.  It happens, sometimes.

 

Yes.  Its all just a mishmash they threw together.  The complete and astonishing level of integration, down to every small detail, including the joke "The Hungry Donkey" is just pure coincidence.  It's happenstance.  The writers aren't intelligent.  They didn't write their story to be unified so absolutely that every action and word they wrote can be explained by the one theme.  They didn't plan it.  That's just an accident (just as Bride actually being ALL about Eurus is just an accident).

 

:facepalm:

[BLS_Pro]

 

For the record, I think you are on to something with the existentialism idea- but it is the context that needs tweaking. Eurus's existentilaist angst is about the difficulty of being, for her, in a world full of people who can and do love each other, and who feel things and understand the feelings of each other. In short, a lot of her rage stems from profound awareness of inadequacy. Which is a cause of a lot of murders, in my opinion.

Are you suggesting that she doesn't feel emotions?  If so, I have to disagree completely.

 

 

 

But the context doesn't need to be love, it only needs to be any emotion at all full stop.

Not true.  For instance, she feels fear (and, one can argue, anger) all the time.  It is what defines her (and she feels it because she does not have love).  No other emotion "conquers all".  No other emotion "makes the world go 'round" because no other emotion -solves- the Final Problem.  Love is valuing - it is differentiation.  IT is what makes the sameness of everything in reality all different.

[bedelia1984]

 

 

For the record, I think you are on to something with the existentialism idea- but it is the context that needs tweaking. Eurus's existentilaist angst is about the difficulty of being, for her, in a world full of people who can and do love each other, and who feel things and understand the feelings of each other. In short, a lot of her rage stems from profound awareness of inadequacy. Which is a cause of a lot of murders, in my opinion.

Are you suggesting that she doesn't feel emotions?  If so, I have to disagree completely.

 

 

Well, she does feel inadequacy, about not having the same emotional language as everyone else, so she feels something. And as you say below, anger and fear too.

 

There are other things she is missing, besides love. Like respect. We don't kill others out of a respect for life. But she has none of that either.

 

 

But the context doesn't need to be love, it only needs to be any emotion at all full stop.

Not true.  For instance, she feels fear (and, one can argue, anger) all the time.  It is what defines her (and she feels it because she does not have love).  No other emotion "conquers all".  No other emotion "makes the world go 'round" because no other emotion -solves- the Final Problem.  Love is valuing - it is differentiation.

 

It is the empathy part that I am talking about, however. As a rule, people don't not murder because they are so full of love for others. We don't murder because we have empathy for others, and are capable of valuing their lives, even when we don't love them.

 

 

The emotions you describe her having are very base emotions- anger and fear. But what she is angry about is, again just in my opinion, how low-functioning she is across the spectrum of human emotion. It's a text book sociopath, with only the shallow emotions accounted for.

[BLS_Pro]

 

 

 

For the record, I think you are on to something with the existentialism idea- but it is the context that needs tweaking. Eurus's existentilaist angst is about the difficulty of being, for her, in a world full of people who can and do love each other, and who feel things and understand the feelings of each other. In short, a lot of her rage stems from profound awareness of inadequacy. Which is a cause of a lot of murders, in my opinion.

Are you suggesting that she doesn't feel emotions?  If so, I have to disagree completely.

 

 

Well, she does feel inadequacy, about not having the same emotional language as everyone else, so she feels something. And as you say below, anger and fear too.

 

There are other things she is missing, besides love. Like respect. We don't kill others out of a respect for life. But she has none of that either.

 

 

But the context doesn't need to be love, it only needs to be any emotion at all full stop.

Not true.  For instance, she feels fear (and, one can argue, anger) all the time.  It is what defines her (and she feels it because she does not have love).  No other emotion "conquers all".  No other emotion "makes the world go 'round" because no other emotion -solves- the Final Problem.  Love is valuing - it is differentiation.

 

It is the empathy part that I am talking about, however. As a rule, people don't not murder because they are so full of love for others. We don't murder because we have empathy for others, and are capable of valuing their lives, even when we don't love them.

 

 

The emotions you describe her having are very base emotions- anger and fear. But what she is angry about is, again just in my opinion, how low-functioning she is across the spectrum of human emotion. It's a text book sociopath, with only the shallow emotions accounted for.

 

 

Respect and empathy are derivatives of love (of others).  They are aspects of it.  Love is the "base emotion". 

 

[bedelia1984]

 

 

 

Respect and empathy are derivatives of love (of others).  They are aspects of it.  Love is the "base emotion". 

 

 

 

Not in conventional scientific wisdom, where the base emotions are that people, as can be seen from their facial expressions feel happy, surprised, afraid, disgusted, angry, and sad.

[BLS_Pro]

 

Respect and empathy are derivatives of love (of others).  They are aspects of it.  Love is the "base emotion".

 

Not in conventional scientific wisdom, where the base emotions are that people, as can be seen from their facial expressions feel happy, surprised, afraid, disgusted, angry, and sad.

You miss my meaning.  I was simply trying to state that one cannot have the emotions of respect and empathy absent the emotion love.  Love is the -foundational- (base) emotion of which the other two are mere aspects - ie particular forms of love, of valuation.