Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[BLS_Pro]

why do you think Euros was talking about how lonely she was

Because she WAS lonely.  It is what she has been since she was a child.  It is not "out of nowhere".  It is her core - the core which NO rationalization she can concoct eliminates.

 

She was stating FACT - and she did so to get Sherlock to solve her problem.

 

It is what she wrote EXPLICITLY all those years ago:

 

"I am lost.

Help me Brother.

Save my life

before my doom.

I am lost without your love.

Save my soul,

seek my room"

 

It was true THEN.  It REMAINS true TODAY.  It has NOT changed.

 

Eurus is NOT trying to use her emotion as the means to some end ('proving her philosophy about morality'). That philosophy is NOT her core.  It isn't what drives her.  It is her attempt at a defense - at suppressing that emotion - at trying (unsuccessfully) to destroy it. (Just as Sherlock attempted to do - but was saved by John, as she wants to be saved by Sherlock).

 

The EMPTINESS - the LONGING in her heart - the LONELINESS - is her core.  And is was LONG before she concocted, let alone needed to 'prove', her supposed philosophy about morality.  That is but useless rationalization and PRATTLING which gets her NOWHERE - and never has.  It has NEVER solved the problem of the hole - the ache - the suffocating longing - in her heart.

 

For her, that UNENDING loneliness is the FIRST problem and the FINAL problem (and has been the driving force behind everything in between).

 

IT is what motivates her - NOT her philosophy.

 

If you can't admit or accept that point, no other discussion is possible here (since they all flow from, and back to, THAT point - to the issue of what is her core, what drives her). 

 

Her core is NOT her philosophy.  The belief that IT drives her is a complete reversal of her characterization.  Her CORE is her loneliness.  It is her lack of love. 

 

So long as that point is denied, any discussion of the rest of the games would be fruitless. (As apparently is repeating the point that we both agree the writers failed to connect the two 'personalities' and that is a problem - one which I've already pointed out renders the debate about all the Sherrinford games meaningless.  However, you appear dead set on arguing over assertions about something you ADMIT does NOT make sense to you and which the writers failed to put together coherently.  Oh well).

 

 

[BLS_Pro]

 

Diverting to a different topic for a moment ... does anyone remember this from the end of TAB?

 

So what's the "Scarlet Roll Mop" (red herring) here? Do we have any idea now why we were allowed to see this little snippet?

 

 

Redbeard is the red herring.  This is one of the reasons (along with Hounds) that I surmised Redbeard was ultimately going to end up NOT being a dog (but, because of Sussex Vampire, would suffer the dog's fate).

 

We were allowed to see it for the same reason we were allowed to see the rest of the film, including the waterfall at the end.  Because the whole episode was ultimately about Eurus.

 

[bedelia1984]

 

 

 

 

Small interview with Stephen Moffat about The Final Problem

 

I've got to say, the things this man says really make me wonder about him.

I agree. Moffat actually seems a bit defensive on the Molly topic, like it has been a consistent negative feedback he's gotten on the episode. I mean he cut off the interviewer to defend his decision. It's really ironic that Molly is such an emotional character when one of the writers is actually quite dispassionate about her.

 

 

Considering how many times people have dumped on him concerning his female characters, I'll bet he is defensive. And that dispassion thing ... I think it's his cover. It's quite at odds with his writing. I'm always surprised by how insightful some of his writing is about relationships, because he sure doesn't come across that way in interviews. Print interviews. I still maintain the best way to appreciate Moffat is to watch his interviews, not read them. When possible, of course.

 

Poor Moftiss. I can't actually know if this is true, of course, but it seems to me they've gone to great lengths to address the accusations of misogynism from way back when, by introducing first Mary, then the abominables, then a female director, now Eurus. And all they get back in return is complaints about how poorly the women are treated. :D Damned if you do and damned if you don't! Maybe they should hire a female writer ... but then they'd probably get hit for implying that only women know how to write women. Poor boys.

 

Like I said ... being a scriptwriter is tough! :-)

 

 

 

Not only that, but recall it is NOT her sexuality or sexual proclivities to which Sherlock is drawn.  Irene NAMES it - "brainy is the new sexy". He is attracted to her MIND (as she is to HIS), not to her being a Domin8trix.

 

Wanna bet?

 

Sure.  Point to it IN the story. :D

 

 

He knew her measurements.

 

 

Hello gerry and welcome to the forum!

 

Iirc Moffat and Gatiss stated in another interview that they changed that Molly scene specificially because no one but the the two of them liked it, and that finally convinced them.

Thanks! It's funny because Moffat kept speaking on how much more devastated Sherlock was by scene and yet Eurus specfiically said the whole reason why Sherlock lost that experiment was because of the effect on Molly.

 

She did? I missed that, have to rewatch. I'm still a little baffled as to whether he won or lost that round, or if "won/lost" even applies .....

 

It's quite evident the writers don't care much about the Molly character based on that interview and the lack of material the character got this season. LB does a lot with very little written support.

Yes, that was disappointing, as was the reduced participation of Lestrade. Although at least Sherlock finally got Greg's name right.

 

I think they love the Molly character, they just ran out of places to go with her without closing off certain futures. And the stories this season were about family; no room for her and Lestrade.

 

 

I think they've been praised for the scene and rightly so. It's just a shame Moffat comes from that lesser known 'she just needs a drink and a good seeing to' school of feminism.

 

I thought 'brainy is the new sexy' was something she (Irene) said about Sherlock, and totally not the reverse. Most of her dialogue seemed to revolve around 'dinner' and 'what he likes'- almost as if that was all she had to offer as a character. And it was the way it was written I didn't like- not her profession!

 

I agree about Molly- they want to keep something in reserve. They may also struggle with Louise's (brilliant though) heart on her sleeve portrayal of Molly, at odds with the ambiguity of MC, MF and even MG. I can imagine th coaching sessions' 'More Vague, Louise... Maybe you love him, maybe you hate him, maybe you just want to blow him up!'.

[Van Buren Supernova]

More LOUSY writing: Mycroft knows the truth about Redbeard, but when we see him thinking to himself, we are shown a dog, not Sherlock's friend. That is a direct LIE told to the audience by the writers, not something IN story. It is a BAD writing cheat.

Alright, I saw your reply. Before get into that, where is this scene exactly?

I don't remember any from Mycroft's thinking actually.

 

In T6T, it was from Sherlock after he was drugged by Mary. Other than that, it was in Mycroft telling story to Sherlock and John. I could have missed that, as I said I have only seen them once and when I tried quick searching I couldn't find any, maybe it's too brief and I missed it again.

 

 

:D Yes, we are just that crazy! Honestly, the guy just makes me laugh and smile, because Andrew Scott plays him brilliantly! At this point, I am not so bothered about 'cheapening' the show... sorry. I've seen too much If I was to worry about all the stuff that doesn't make sense in Sherlock, I wouldn't be able to enjoy it anymore, so somewhere along the way I decided to take it for what it is. Which is still incredibly entertaining and often very heart-warming and gut-wrenching!

 

 

I think the reason why I liked Moriarty so much, and was disappointed that he hadn't really returned, was his humour. Yes, he was creepy, murderous and clearly insane but he was funny. The other main villains were just creepy and/or mad. Jim was nasty but his character was allowed flashes of humour and, for me, the humour in this show has always been an important part of the story.

Yes, I get that and obviously I want him in my screen as well, but it's as good as flashback and in the mind palace. Well, part of that is because I love TRF and it takes a lot of beating from Sherlock's fake death. If they do it with Moriarty's as well, none of TRF is real and it kinds of impacting me bit too much to turn back to that.

So, selfish reason. :p

All in all, I won! He is dead XD we agree that we enjoy these:

 

 

What makes me laugh are the dead pans from his bodyguards. Do you think they practice a lot not to laugh? OHHH.. I guess Moriarty points snipper's gun at them as training.

[Surelock]

Did anyone here watch or read Naruto? It's a popular anime/manga series.

 

Naruto has this power of talking his villains out of being evil. He doesn't say anything insightful or amazing. He just says cliche things about love and understanding for a few minutes. Then the bad guys who have been bad guys for their entire life decide to become good.

 

When I saw Sherlock talk Euros out of being evil I immediately thought of how Naruto talked Nagato out of being a mass murderer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9UdW76UmvA

 

Since this episode is so derivative I wonder if Moffat and Gatiss got inspiration from Naruto.

[sherlockandjohn]

"I want to break free-e. I want to break freeeeeee!" I was sooooooooo excited when that happened! My arms went up in the air! That's what this guy does to me :D Best villain ever!

 

I enjoyed this episode more the second time around. Eurus' games, while terrible, insane and highly disturbing, were not really games at all. They were a cry for help, as BLS_Pro also states above. In that context, I think it's a great episode. I can't help but feel for her, despite the horrible things she does and has done. It's actually pretty great that Moffat and Gatiss wrote a story that made me feel for the villain, as I love complex characters. That being said, I also love fairy tales in which there are "good guys" and "bad guys". Depends on the purpose of the story.

 

Molly Hooper... This is the first episode that made me think she and Sherlock might actually work as a couple... well, probably not, but she is a stronger person than she sometimes seems. For her to love Sherlock through everything and to finally say it is powerful. I used to think it made her slightly pathetic to keep pining for Sherlock, but I take that back now. She is not pining - she is actually pretty realistic about his feelings for her - but she just loves him. Oh, Sherlock, you should go to her, not Irene Adler! :facepalm:

 

Love how Mycroft tries to make Sherlock angry with him to make it easier for him to make his decision. He knew, as we all did, that Sherlock would choose to spare John. At first I wasn't sure what he was doing, when he told Sherlock to shoot John and get it over with quickly, but then he started ridiculing Sherlock, and I was like: Aw, Mycroft! Also love how Sherlock said that it made it so much harder. That was quite a poignant Sherlock-Mycroft interaction. I was really glad to see that.

 

Another good moment is when Sherlock says to Mycroft: "John stays". Mycroft says: "This is family". Sherlock: "THAT'S WHY HE STAYS!"

[Surelock]

I don't think anyone has posted this interview with Mark Gatiss yet:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4122352/Sherlock-creator-Mark-Gatiss-slams-fans-confusing-tells-read-children-s-book.html

 

This article has some interesting points:

 

 

The fourth season of Sherlock has left some viewers baffled with its deftly-timed plot twists and turns.

But creator Mark Gatiss was quick to defend the hit BBC One crime drama, telling fans that complained it was too complicated to 'go read a children's book'. 

 

 

He told The Daily Star: 'People ask if it's good to challenge the audience. Of course it f***ing is. Why would you not want to challenge your audience?

'I did a phone-in after the Christmas special a few years ago and someone said [sherlock] was too complicated for people to follow. I said, "Oh, go and pour some warm paste into your mouth".'

He added: 'Go and read a children's book with hard pages if you don't want to be challenged. We're making the show we want to make. We don't make it a certain way because fans are pressuring us.

 

It's funny that Gatiss said they don't give in to fan pressure. I'd say that Season 4 gave in a fair bit to fan pressure.

 

Also it looks like Gatiss and Moffat can simply use the 'oh we're challenging our audience' excuse when anything in their show doesn't make sense.

[Surelock]

Behind the Scenes of this episode 'The Final Problem':
https://vimeo.com/199600904

 

Watch it quickly before it gets taken down.

 

Okay I watched it and they don't tell us anything special about Euros. They just said she wants to be loved and she also wants revenge. They don't mention anything about a split personality.

[Arcadia]

Which reminds me ... I finally found the "behind the scenes" stuff I was looking for, but it's mostly just cutesy little snippets of interviews with the cast. But cute is good, here you go: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLULP5z9s2CVFCQhbTPIs9a7kDOaOYDnzr

[Redbeard]

There is something haunting about this episode.  I had a sleepless night right after and all day at work yesterday I felt unsettled and distracted thinking about it.  I suppose even though I didn't love it, it was a success in that it made me FEEL something and its making ruminate on it.  I have yet to re-watch it and at first I said I had no interest in re-watching but I think I have changed my mind.  I'm gonna cave.  I am just so curious how it will play out for me now. 

 

Yes, there would be something sweet and charming about a Sherlock and Molly romance.  Sure he might admire Irene from a distance but I think if she were living around the corner and he actually had to see and speak to her on a day to day basis it would grow tedious quickly lol.  She has zero warmth, and being with her would be a regression.  But also, I think somewhere in Sherlock's mind he is intrigued / curious by both the good girl and the bad girl.  Irene's appeal would be that he could keep emotion totally out of it, which would be an easier road for him.  Molly would actually challenge that side of him more where he might not be able to resist an emotional attachment because she just feels so fully.   To me, he would never actually wind up with anyone, but parts of him would always wonder...just from time to time... about both women and what it would have been like. 

 

Anyway I won't comment again until I have seen the show a second time, but reading your conversations is fascinating and will keep me going in the meantime. 

[Redbeard]

 

Redbeard wasn't real.  Do I have to change my username lol?

 

To what?  Dead Man Walking?  ;)

 

 

 

I'd have to think about it lol.  I thought I was naming myself after a dog, only to find out I named myself after a repressed memory of Victor Trevor.    

[Arcadia]

I agree about Molly- they want to keep something in reserve. They may also struggle with Louise's (brilliant though) heart on her sleeve portrayal of Molly, at odds with the ambiguity of MC, MF and even MG. I can imagine th coaching sessions' 'More Vague, Louise... Maybe you love him, maybe you hate him, maybe you just want to blow him up!'.

You know, I think that's exactly what she conveyed. She wants to do all those things. At the same time. I know the feeling.

 

Did anyone here watch or read Naruto? It's a popular anime/manga series.

 

Naruto has this power of talking his villains out of being evil. He doesn't say anything insightful or amazing. He just says cliche things about love and understanding for a few minutes. Then the bad guys who have been bad guys for their entire life decide to become good.

 

When I saw Sherlock talk Euros out of being evil I immediately thought of how Naruto talked Nagato out of being a mass murderer:

 

Since this episode is so derivative I wonder if Moffat and Gatiss got inspiration from Naruto.

 

I think all writers, if they have any sensitivity at all, get inspiration from everything. So there's bound to be some crossover of motifs and themes from one medium to another. Art's just sort of like that.

 

At this moment, having only seen TFP twice, it's not my feeling that Sherlock has talked Eurus out of being evil. I'm not sure "being evil" even applies to someone in her situation. She is very, very ill. He may have been the first person to show her compassion in a really long time, and for a moment he reached her enough to shut her down. But I don't think she's changed from what she was before; a severely damaged psyche. It's incredibly dark and sad for this show. Still not sure what to make of it.

 

I enjoyed this episode more the second time around.

Ha! Another one! I feel so vindicated. Do you think if we watch it often enough, it will become our favorite episode? XD 

 

It may not be the most efficient way to tell a story, but I admit I love shows that force you dig a bit if you want the gold.

 

Eurus' games, while terrible, insane and highly disturbing, were not really games at all. They were a cry for help, as BLS_Pro also states above. In that context, I think it's a great episode. I can't help but feel for her, despite the horrible things she does and has done. It's actually pretty great that Moffat and Gatiss wrote a story that made me feel for the villain, as I love complex characters. That being said, I also love fairy tales in which there are "good guys" and "bad guys". Depends on the purpose of the story.

And this story is both, don't you think? I like that aspect of it too; it functions on different levels. I think we have a tendency to forget that; we get so involved in the complexities of plot that we forget it's also just a good old-fashioned fairy tale.

[Arcadia]

There is something haunting about this episode.  I had a sleepless night right after and all day at work yesterday I felt unsettled and distracted thinking about it.  I suppose even though I didn't love it, it was a success in that it made me FEEL something and its making ruminate on it.  I have yet to re-watch it and at first I said I had no interest in re-watching but I think I have changed my mind.  I'm gonna cave.  I am just so curious how it will play out for me now. 

 

That's exactly how I was after HLV. All raw feelings and finding it hard to think about anything else. How do they do that? Dang it, Moftiss! :d

 

[Surelock]

It looks like nobody has asked the obvious questions so I may as well:

 

If Euros was feeling lonely and wanted to play then why didn't she just go and say it to Sherlock like any normal kid would? Why did she go to great lengths to put Victor in a well and make this complex puzzle for Sherlock to solve?  If Sherlock wasn't listening to her then why didn't Euros just go to her mother and tell her she was lonely?

 

I swear for a genius, she does a lot of things that defy common sense.

[J.P.]

Part of my dismay with watching this episode was based on the title, "The Final Problem", which raised my expectations.  I wouldn't have been nearly as disappointed had it been titled something like "House of Horrors". :lol2:

 

Oh, I would really like to read more of your thoughts.

 

Hey!! IT IS TRUE!! (Channeling Mrs.Wenceslas)

There are always times when I find brainy men much sexier (eventhough they look like a giant-grouper-hitting-reef-face-first-because of-strong-current) than 'other' man (I don't know how to describe them, before they impress me on something other than physicality they are just a lump of talking shadow :P)

This! But can you describe what you mean as "sexy"?

 

I really can imagine Sherlock and Irend being attractive to each other without it being sexual. It has nothing to do with Irene's profession - she was using sexual allussions in her game with Sherlock, because she was used to do it with her clients - to exploit their desires. She was also informed that it will confuse or irritate or unsettle Sherlock, whitch also was her usual MO. But neither Sherlock reacts as she was used to, nor can she be deduced into a pile of raw data in 5 seconds, what usually happens with normal people. So they are riddles/challenges for each other and it's what they both love.

 

Now, talking about sapiosexuality. I suppose this could apply to her, but again, it doesn't have to be about sex. Personally I also find brainy people attractive, but it's not like I want to rip their clothes off. (okay, Irene says that, but she's playing a game) My brain gets it's fix of dopamine but it also happens when I see a cake. ;)

There is often also a thought that I wouldn't mind if it led to something more, so it's more like sapioromantic what I mean here. They can be attractive with slight sexual subtext, but without an immediate physical reaction.

 

Does it makes sense to anyone?

 

So IMO Sherlock could keep the connection to Irene's as a little thrilling possibility, without trying to make it anything else, because they both know any kind of actual relationship wouldn't work, and only ruin that funny little thing they have (having a cake without eating it) John, of course doesn't even think about it this way, because it's not how his desire works, and as most people he automatically see things from his own POV. So he tells Sherlock „go for it“ not knowing that Sherlock probably has „it“ already. Which of course doesn’t diminish his message. But I think it belongs to TLD thread.

 

 

Re Eurus' Game:

I think the games are supposed to examin how the emotional bond affect those 3 men. To see how far friendship/love affects them. Because it's something she wanted as a child, but never experienced. To me "playing" is equal to loving relationship. She wanted a loving relationship with his brother, but he choose to love his friend instead. Now after decades she still wants to know what love actually is, because she never had a chance to learn or experience any kind of it. She's like an alien trying to figure out how humans work. Maybe the whole test was about evaluating if it's worth to go for it.

 

Need to watch it again. And also watch TLD with TFP in mind, to see if Faith's behaviour might tell me more about Eurus.

 

One of the things that no one really mentions yet, is what Mycroft has done to Eurus. Uncle Rudy has a lot to it, apparently, but Mycroft was somewhat involved heavily, maybe from the start if I have to draw any conclusion from his story.

 

He was very young back then. Somehow him and Uncle Rudy, who should have good position in government, managed to cover up Eurus for decades. So both of them think Eurus is irreparable and it's right to take and lock her away. I find that difficult to digest, knowing what they knew. First, Redbeard disappeared. They didn't find the body, they didn't know what happened to him. 'Drown' was thrown around, so assuming that they searched the lake, why on earth they missed the well? Anyway, nothing is really conclusive but babbling creepy kid. Arson, of course it's horrible, but it could easily caused by lack of risk understanding. What exactly made Uncle Rudy and Mycroft thought it's okay to lock her forever based on that? Well, Eurus turns out to be murderous, if she weren't, being locked up for decades could probably turn anyone into murderous as well.

I don't think they locked her away because she was accused of killing Victor and burning down a house. There surely were more sighns saying danger. The problem was she couldn't be conrtolled by anyone because she was not only smart, but also could manipulate easily. I think you notice such things as a parent. (ever seen We Need To Talk About Kevin?)

 

Random revelation:

when Mycroft tells Sherlock about making friends with other kids being ghastly, he actually is trying to amplify the false memory to prevent Sherlock from the real memory coming up. His trying to prevent Sherlock having friends because it also could trigger the memory. That's why he say John might be Sherlock's ruin. Another theme that seems to be planned from the beginning.

 

So - instead of protecting his brother from ties because it could hurt him, he tries to keep up a facade of false memories, because they could hurt him. I liked the first interpretation much better tbh. Because not telling Sherlock, is making him vulnerable for his entire life, it's like letting him suffer from a broken leg and protect him from walking instead of fixing the bone.

[Arcadia]

It looks like nobody has asked the obvious questions so I may as well:

 

If Euros was feeling lonely and wanted to play then why didn't she just go and say it to Sherlock like any normal kid would? Why did she go to great lengths to put Victor in a well and make this complex puzzle for Sherlock to solve? If Sherlock wasn't listening to her then why didn't Euros just go to her mother and tell her she was lonely?

 

I swear for a genius, she does a lot of things that defy common sense.

Because she wasn't a normal kid.

[J.P.]

It looks like nobody has asked the obvious questions so I may as well:

 

If Euros was feeling lonely and wanted to play then why didn't she just go and say it to Sherlock like any normal kid would? Why did she go to great lengths to put Victor in a well and make this complex puzzle for Sherlock to solve?  If Sherlock wasn't listening to her then why didn't Euros just go to her mother and tell her she was lonely?

 

I swear for a genius, she does a lot of things that defy common sense.

 

Being a genius doesn't mean you can make sense of yuourself.

 

Her mother surely said go ask Sherlock to play with you.

 

Of course she went and said to Sherlock she wanted to play with him. But he was a boy, wanted boyish games. She probably also scared away all other kids in the neighborhood, they were too stupid, and she might have made them "laugh". Sherlock was the only one who could keep up with her, but he prefered a normal friend, who wasn't smarter than himself, over a manipulative genius without empathy, which was much safer and probably more fun.

 

Please don't put together intelligence and empathy/emotional intelligence/assertiveness. They are different things, they come from different places.

[J.P.]

Random revelation:

 

when Mycroft tells Sherlock about making friends with other kids being ghastly, he actually is trying to amplify the false memory to prevent Sherlock from the real memory coming up. His trying to prevent Sherlock having friends because it also could trigger the memory. That's why he say John might be Sherlock's ruin. Another theme that seems to be planned from the beginning.

 

So - instead of protecting his brother from ties because it could hurt him, he tries to keep up a facade of false memories, because they could hurt him. I liked the first interpretation much better tbh. Because not telling Sherlock, is making him vulnerable for his entire life, it's like letting him suffer from a broken leg and protect him from walking instead of fixing the bone.

Which also makes the whole show a story about Sherlock finding back to his childhood trauma and healing it by finding a new friend.

[BLS_Pro]

He doesn't say anything insightful or amazing. He just says cliche things about love and understanding for a few minutes. Then the bad guys who have been bad guys for their entire life decide to become good.

 

When I saw Sherlock talk Euros out of being evil I immediately thought of how Naruto talked Nagato out of being a mass murderer

 

Since this episode is so derivative I wonder if Moffat and Gatiss got inspiration from Naruto.

"Without doubt, she WILL kill again if she has the opportunity."

 

Yup.  You nailed it.  'Sherlock talked Eurus out of being evil'.

 

[BLS_Pro]

 

I love shows that force you dig a bit if you want the gold.

THIS is why, whether I like an episode or not, I love this show (and why I CARE if the writing is good or bad).  Because they HAVE written some great stories - and have done so with wonderful depth through GOOD and layered writing.

 

 I can't help but feel for her, despite the horrible things she does and has done. It's actually pretty great that Moffat and Gatiss wrote a story that made me feel for the villain, as I love complex characters.

In order to achieve this, I will say they have a bit of an advantage over most other shows.  Part of the reason they can do this is because they can literally show you the mental/psychological/emotional state of a character - specifically in this case, by showing her as a frightened little girl.  One immediately feels sorry and protective for her, and thus for Eurus.  While a regular show might have been able to ultimately make you feel for a similar villain absent those visuals and the heart-tugging acting of the little girl, it is a much harder task to do WITHOUT that 'cheat'.

[BLS_Pro]

If Euros was feeling lonely and wanted to play then why didn't she just go and say it to Sherlock like any normal kid would? 

If Sherlock wasn't listening to her then why didn't Euros just go to her mother and tell her she was lonely?

Who is to say she didn't?  In fact, she probably did - like any normal kid.  And, like any normal kid, it wouldn't have solved her problem.  You can't force other kids to WANT to be your BEST FRIEND.  Your parents can't help your lack of having a best friend. 

 

You can't MAKE someone have a deep connection with you.  You can't FORCE someone to love and want to be with you.  And any pretense at it just amplifies the loneliness.  So 'Sherlock - go play with your sister' wouldn't help.

 

(This is one of the reasons why the "I Love You" scene with Molly is so painful for both of them)

[sherlockandjohn]

 

I enjoyed this episode more the second time around.

Ha! Another one! I feel so vindicated. Do you think if we watch it often enough, it will become our favorite episode? XD

 

Suuure! :D

If that was the solution, my favorite episode might have been TEH... I think I've seen that one (and TRF and ASIP, but they are among my faves) most times.

 

 

 

Eurus' games, while terrible, insane and highly disturbing, were not really games at all. They were a cry for help, as BLS_Pro also states above. In that context, I think it's a great episode. I can't help but feel for her, despite the horrible things she does and has done. It's actually pretty great that Moffat and Gatiss wrote a story that made me feel for the villain, as I love complex characters. That being said, I also love fairy tales in which there are "good guys" and "bad guys". Depends on the purpose of the story.

And this story is both, don't you think? I like that aspect of it too; it functions on different levels. I think we have a tendency to forget that; we get so involved in the complexities of plot that we forget it's also just a good old-fashioned fairy tale.

 

Absolutely! There are heroes and villains in 'Sherlock'. Some of them are just not black/white, as opposed to, say, most of The Lord of the Rings type villains.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

It looks like nobody has asked the obvious questions so I may as well:

 

If Euros was feeling lonely and wanted to play then why didn't she just go and say it to Sherlock like any normal kid would? Why did she go to great lengths to put Victor in a well and make this complex puzzle for Sherlock to solve? If Sherlock wasn't listening to her then why didn't Euros just go to her mother and tell her she was lonely?

 

I swear for a genius, she does a lot of things that defy common sense.

Because she wasn't a normal kid.

 

 

Trust me, not all kids are good with expressing how they feel, not openly. And if Eurus tried, and Sherlock ignored her, she would most likely stop. Why go to the parents who can't change that Sherlock would rather hang out with his best friend?

 

Of course, reacting like Eurus did was extreme. But that's where I agree with Arcadia; she wasn't a normal kid. She was super-intelligent, maybe an outsider in school, and she didn't have friends.

[J.P.]

Moffat added: “I suppose it’s that Sherlock now finally understands that’s he’s stronger and smarter than Mycroft in a way. But not because he is actually smarter – he’s less smart – but because his emotions, his connections to other human beings, the wisdom he has gained from his connections he has made in the world, make him stronger.

Funny, this little voice in me trying to oppose before I even finish the line: but it makes him vulnerable! Terribly vulnerable!

Gosh, I'm so screwed! :facepalm:

I actually would be true for the Sherlock I thought he was. But with the new background it does make him stronger indeed.

Now I need to adjust my own Subtext to the new situation. Grrrr...

[BLS_Pro]

THE KEY TO THE FINAL PROBLEM

 

I've been meaning to post my favorite joke from Final, but I kept getting side-tracked.  Now I'm glad I was because I just realized it ties into the Eurus reason/good/evil/emotions theme - and is the KEY to the whole episode.

When Moriarty first enters Sherrinford on Christmas Day, he plays with nativity decorations and tells Mycroft:

"I wrote my own version of the Nativity when I was a child: The Hungry Donkey.  It was a bit gorey.  But if you're going to put a baby in a manger, you're asking for trouble."

Now I burst out laughing when he said this - that is REALLY funny.  But it wasn't until I went to write it down here that I realized The Hungry Donkey is actually a reference to an example used in philosophy pertaining to morality and its use as a guide to human actions.  It is more commonly known as Buridan's Ass.  And the example is that of a hungry ass placed equidistant between two bales of hay.  In the example, the donkey starves because it has no means of choosing between the equal bales.  It can't choose and thus dies.

Buridan summarized the problem thusly:
 

Should two courses be judged equal, then the Will cannot break the deadlock, all it can do is to suspend judgement until the circumstances change, and the right course of action is clear.

— Jean Buridan, c. 1340

 

In other words, in the face of equal alternatives (of alternatives between which there is supposedly no difference), reason cannot guide one's choice.  No -rational- choice can be made.

Reference to some OTHER standard must be made.

That certainly fits with Eurus and her personal dilemma, as well as all the games she sets up.  To her, there is no difference between the choices in the world (not even moral differences - she's too "clever" to fall for those 'subjective' - ie unreal - differences).  So reason cannot tell her what to do.  THAT is why she is stuck in the plane and cannot land.  She needs something OTHER than her intellect - something other than her reasoning - to guide her.  She needs emotion to help her.  But she doesn't know how to use emotion AS her guide in these circumstances.  And, in fact, the only emotions she's acutely aware of (loneliness and fear) leave her helpless.  She's -stuck- Existentially.  This is what the existentialists identify as the individual's 'starting point' in life.  It is sometimes called "the existential attitude": "a sense of disorientation, confusion, or dread in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world." (THAT is why this episode looks and feels like a Horror Film - and in fact draws from many of them - because that is supposedly the 'natural' condition of the individual - the one we face from the time we are children [which is why we are shown Eurus as a child - she's still stuck in that condition.  She is like that ALL the time.  So what we are seeing in her is NOT a split personality at all, nor a mental illness, but the state into which all humans are supposedly born].)

The episode goes on to show the solution to this "Final Problem" - this existential angst and despair - is the love of others.  That IT is the only thing which provides meaning - provides "context" for action - for life.  And that is neither good nor bad.  It just "is what it is"

Turns out, this episode (maybe the entire series?) is about the 'existential problem' and how to deal with it.