Who do you think is the worst of the villains?

[Boton]

 

Yes, that bothered me too ... whether you liked Mary or not (and I did, very much), T6T made me feel she was introduced ONLY so Moffat could fulfill his childhood dream of writing Sherlock's best man speech. Then they used her to introduce a female bad ass into the story ... for ONE episode. After that they had no more use of her and disposed of her asap. 

 

I think that's another reason I loved TLD ... Mary has (to my mind) her proper function in that story. Too bad she was dead already, but also that made it more poignant, so hey. Like I said, it's their show, I'm grateful for the good bits and am trying to leave the rest in peace.

 

 

Totally agree; and I think they only made her pregnant so they could do the "giving birth in a car" joke. 

 

I also liked the way they used Mary in TLD.  That was actually a fairly clever thing to do with her, so I was glad of that.  

[T.o.b.y]

Ugh, tastes differ... I hated what they did with Mary in The Lying Detective and it spoils the otherwise wonderful episode for me a bit.

 

Btw, speaking of villains, I am still a bit disappointed that they didn't go anywhere with Mary's sinister potential. She seemed more cut out for a grey character à la Irene than the Guardian Angel of Baker Street she finally became.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yeah, I kept expecting to find out that she'd been sent by Moriarty to observe John in case he .did anything that might indicate Sherlock was still alive (or whatever), and ended up genuinely falling in love with him.  It would have been interesting to see how she managed that juggling act.

[Van Buren Supernova]

You mean, just because she wanted the jade pin so badly that she had her henchman kill the only two people who might be able to tell her where it was?

But that doesn't bother me as much as she mistook John for Sherlock. Sebastian reached out for Sherlock, he was already quite well-known by then eventhough his face was not everywhere yet, or we could assume, he wasn't photographed much for secrecy, but still.. You would think a so called criminal mastermind to have better resources.

And the worst one is, well, I would say a simple pen knife could create more terror that using the over the top contraption to threaten one's date. Not to mention that it's a very unusual looking contraption. Is it possible that they dissembled it for transport and then carefully assembled that thing in the tunnel using some kind of Ikea type instruction? And using headlights, elaborate tools, it's a balance and accuracy sensitive type of contraption! Waterpass, the need waterpass to level it. 

 

Ugh, tastes differ... I hated what they did with Mary in The Lying Detective and it spoils the otherwise wonderful episode for me a bit.

 

Btw, speaking of villains, I am still a bit disappointed that they didn't go anywhere with Mary's sinister potential. She seemed more cut out for a grey character à la Irene than the Guardian Angel of Baker Street she finally became.

Yup.

I'm still wondering what is the big deal of her job that she said John wouldn't love her anymore if he saw the memory stick.

She is just a more hands-on and muscle version of Sherlock, which she should know that's what he, actually likes.

 

Yeah, I kept expecting to find out that she'd been sent by Moriarty to observe John in case he .did anything that might indicate Sherlock was still alive (or whatever), and ended up genuinely falling in love with him.  It would have been interesting to see how she managed that juggling act.

Although it would be very cliche, I would prefer that too after seeing the path the create for her.

[T.o.b.y]

Regarding the difference between Mary and Sherlock: Mary was an assassin while Sherlock, to John's knowledge at least, hadn't killed anybody before the Magnussen incident.

 

As a soldier himself, though, I doubt John is generally morally opposed to killing other people, in fact, he shot a man in cold blood the very first episode. I think what he really minded was being lied to. Mary thought him a "better man" than he really was.

[Hikari]

Regarding the difference between Mary and Sherlock: Mary was an assassin while Sherlock, to John's knowledge at least, hadn't killed anybody before the Magnussen incident.

 

As a soldier himself, though, I doubt John is generally morally opposed to killing other people, in fact, he shot a man in cold blood the very first episode. I think what he really minded was being lied to. Mary thought him a "better man" than he really was.

 

And he thought her a better woman than she was . . .

 

As we know, the operatives who work in the shadows for intelligence organizations deal in moral ambiguity on a daily basis.  The deaths which they dish out are not the more straightforward deaths of the battlefield, though both kinds have the same stated goal in mind: to protect one's country and citizens from foreign powers who mean them harm.  But what is 'harm' vs. 'good' is relative in this world.  Depends on who's giving the orders.  And of course, if an agent is compromised, they are completely expendable and expected to kill themselves if their own people don't do it first, to prevent their information from being extracted under torture. 

 

Working for a shadowy organization might have been enough on its own to make Mary a Magnusson target  . .  but I get the feeling that she was recruited by the CIA due to a criminal past of her own before she started killing under orders.  (cf. La Femme Nikita, remade as 'Point of No Return'--in which the heroine is forced to become a hired assassin for the government as an alternative to being executed for a murder she committed while high and attempting to rob a store.)  Something like that was in Mary's past, probably. 

[Boton]

 

Is it possible that they dissembled it for transport and then carefully assembled that thing in the tunnel using some kind of Ikea type instruction? A

 

...

 

I'm still wondering what is the big deal of her job that she said John wouldn't love her anymore if he saw the memory stick.

She is just a more hands-on and muscle version of Sherlock, which she should know that's what he, actually likes.

 

 

 

"Dammit, Shan, the instructions say we should have 8 wingnuts, and we only have 7! And stop hogging the Allen wrench!"

 

...

 

I think that Mary bought into John's fantasy that he wanted the white picket fence and the calm life. I can imagine that they stood over Sherlock's grave, and he told her that every time he has pursued danger, someone he cared about has died (likely, considering the military experience as well).  Now, he's just going to settle down with someone who posed no threat of danger.

[Artemis]

Good points made about Magnussen, and I agree!

I think what's mainly stopping me from giving Magnussen my vote for "baddest" is that I feel like, in many cases, there would be a fairly simple (not easy) way to get out from under his control; which is to let the truth come out.  As a blackmailer, it seems like most of his power comes from people not wanting to face the consequences of their actions.  In a sense, he doesn't hold any actual power over them at all; it's their own secrets and mistakes that are holding them hostage (which is probably part of what he enjoys about it).  He is causing pain, but to an extent they're also doing it to themselves.  That's not to dismiss the fact that in some cases, such as Mary's, letting the truth come out could have life-threatening consequences for her and the people she loves.  But even so, it might still be better to deal with those consequences as they come and stop running and living in fear of them, rather than live under the thumb of an evil man forever.  Terrible things might befall you as a result, but you would be free, instead of being ruled by the fear of being found out.  Withholding the truth has just as much potential to ruin your life; that's how Sherlock ended up shot, and John and Mary's marriage started to fall apart.  Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying it's not evil what he does.  It is.

I guess a different way of saying it is that, while I find Magnussen evil and repulsive personally, his villainy doesn't quite feel "baddest" to me, because I don't quite get the same feeling of inescapable desperation from the situations he puts people in.  It can be dealt with, there is a solution.  It's not a *good* solution, but it is one nevertheless, and there would be more time to prepare for the consequences.  Moriarty I find less repulsive personally, but more villainous that way.  His situations are more temporary but more sudden, immediately dangerous, and difficult to get out of.  I personally would rather deal with a blackmailer who will try to ruin me if I don't do as he wants, than someone who has a sniper set on my closest friends if I don't do as he wants.

But where motivation and sadistic enjoyment of hurting people is concerned, I agree that Magnussen edges out the others.

 

 

[Artemis]

I definitely vote for Magnussen but I don't really have a good rational reason to give for my choice. I think he is a disgusting, despicable sadist and bully and he makes my flesh crawl. I understand why he is said to be the one person Sherlock truly hated, I sympathize with that entirely.

 

Like I sad, I don't really have a good rational argument for choosing Magnussen, except maybe that he seems the most sane. At least Sherlock agrees with me that he is hate-worthy. Maybe I just despise him because my hero / fictional crush does. :lol:

 

That brings a question to mind.  Which villain *does* Sherlock think is worst?  I know that in ACD canon, it seems to be Milverton (Magnussen); or at least that case could be made.  But what would BBC Sherlock say?  In TLD, I recall him saying that Culverton was "the most dangerous and most despicable human being he had ever encountered," or something to that effect.

 

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

I think what's mainly stopping me from giving Magnussen my vote for "baddest" is that I feel like, in many cases, there would be a fairly simple (not easy) way to get out from under his control; which is to let the truth come out.  As a blackmailer, it seems like most of his power comes from people not wanting to face the consequences of their actions.  In a sense, he doesn't hold any actual power over them at all; it's their own secrets and mistakes that are holding them hostage (which is probably part of what he enjoys about it).  He is causing pain, but to an extent they're also doing it to themselves.  That's not to dismiss the fact that in some cases, such as Mary's, letting the truth come out could have life-threatening consequences for her and the people she loves.  But even so, it might still be better to deal with those consequences as they come and stop running and living in fear of them, rather than live under the thumb of an evil man forever.  Terrible things might befall you as a result, but you would be free, instead of being ruled by the fear of being found out.  Withholding the truth has just as much potential to ruin your life; that's how Sherlock ended up shot, and John and Mary's marriage started to fall apart.  Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying it's not evil what he does.  It is.

I guess a different way of saying it is that, while I find Magnussen evil and repulsive personally, his villainy doesn't quite feel "baddest" to me, because I don't quite get the same feeling of inescapable desperation from the situations he puts people in.  It can be dealt with, there is a solution.  It's not a *good* solution, but it is one nevertheless, and there would be more time to prepare for the consequences.  Moriarty I find less repulsive personally, but more villainous that way.  His situations are more temporary but more sudden, immediately dangerous, and difficult to get out of.  I personally would rather deal with a blackmailer who will try to ruin me if I don't do as he wants, than someone who has a sniper set on my closest friends if I don't do as he wants.

 

I think we are on opposite side of arguments regarding this.

Basically we use the same principal of reasonings but choose different villain to tie it with.

 

Although opposite, I get what you are saying, I guess it's how things affect different people differently.

 

I just want to add that what makes Magnussen despicable beyond what you described, is the way he threatens to ruin the lives of.. not only just you. I believe sometimes the target doesn't even know they are targeted, because his preys are people who care about the targets.

And then the option of letting the truth comes out with all the consequences is not entirely up to the target, but you. So it's your choice; obey me and they are safe, but you are mine. Defy me and ruin the lives of your loved ones.

 

I don't think people like Sherlock gives crap to Magnussen if he threatens Sherlock himself. Eventhough he has international reputation he wouldn't give in to become a puppet. What makes M worst is he threatens Sherlock with John and Mary, Lady Smallwood with husband.

 

 

That brings a question to mind.  Which villain *does* Sherlock think is worst?  I know that in ACD canon, it seems to be Milverton (Magnussen); or at least that case could be made.  But what would BBC Sherlock say?  In TLD, I recall him saying that Culverton was "the most dangerous and most despicable human being he had ever encountered," or something to that effect.

Magnussen hands down.

He killed him. And believe it's necessary.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Which villain *does* Sherlock think is worst?  I know that in ACD canon, it seems to be Milverton (Magnussen); or at least that case could be made.  But what would BBC Sherlock say?  In TLD, I recall him saying that Culverton was "the most dangerous and most despicable human being he had ever encountered," or something to that effect.

 

In Last Vow, he says, "I’ve dealt with murderers, psychopaths, terrorists, serial killers. None of them can turn my stomach like Charles Augustus Magnussen."  And he practically spits out the name.

 

I'm not finding his comment on Culverton Smith just now.  (Do you recall what scene it was in?)  But in any case, Smith would need to compete pretty vigorously to outdo Magnussen in Sherlock's book.

 

I think what's mainly stopping me from giving Magnussen my vote for "baddest" is that I feel like, in many cases, there would be a fairly simple (not easy) way to get out from under his control; which is to let the truth come out.  As a blackmailer, it seems like most of his power comes from people not wanting to face the consequences of their actions.  In a sense, he doesn't hold any actual power over them at all; it's their own secrets and mistakes that are holding them hostage....

 

A lot of people seem to be assuming that all of Magnussen's allegations are actually true, and that they all pertain to some sort of guilt.  But this isn't necessarily the case.  Some secrets, for example, could simply be old rumors that never had a bit of truth to them -- but people do tend to believe "where there's smoke, there's fire," especially if they read it in the paper.

 

I agree that CAM probably relies on actual guilt a good bit of the time -- it's just easier.  But that needn't be the case all of the time, or anywhere near it.

[Artemis]

I just want to add that what makes Magnussen despicable beyond what you described, is the way he threatens to ruin the lives of.. not only just you. I believe sometimes the target doesn't even know they are targeted, because his preys are people who care about the targets.

And then the option of letting the truth comes out with all the consequences is not entirely up to the target, but you. So it's your choice; obey me and they are safe, but you are mine. Defy me and ruin the lives of your loved ones.

 

That's true, but then I think the next step is to tell the target that they are targeted.  Then it's not just your choice, it's theirs too.  You don't put all the responsibility on yourself, the choice of action should be with the main target; that's how you start to get back control from someone like Magnussen.  Like he said, "Mycroft's pressure point is his junkie detective brother, Sherlock.  And Sherlock's pressure point is his best friend, John Watson.  John Watson's pressure point is his wife.  I own John Watson's wife, I own Mycroft."  The reason his control can increase like that is because they're not communicating openly with each other, and they're not dealing with the problem at its source (Mary in this case).  They're deciding how to protect her individually instead of making it a group effort.  He doesn't "own" any of them without owning Mary.  It's all centered around her, so that's exactly how you deal with it.  Talk to Mary, exchange information, tell her exactly what's going on and what he threatened to do.  Run through the possible scenarios of what could happen if Magnussen releases her information to people who want to hurt her, as he threatens.  One place where they went wrong is that their whole plan hinged on getting Mary's information out of Magnussen's hands so that he couldn't use it, instead of figuring out what to do if he did use it.  If Sherlock could work around the Reichenbach Fall, they likely could have found some way to deal with the danger Mary and John were in as well.  Sherlock asked Mary why she didn't come to him in the first place, and I think that's exactly what she should have done, but she was afraid of John finding her out.  What blackmailers do is isolate people by way of their shame and fear.  One way to counteract that is to have a support network of people who know the real you, on your side, brainstorming with you.  The more people you have, the better chance you have; and with someone like Sherlock on your side, your chances are excellent.  But it has to start with open and honest communication.  Out yourself before he outs you.

 

Magnussen hands down.

He killed him. And believe it's necessary.

 

Killing him doesn't necessarily mean that he thought Magnussen was the most despicable though, does it?  Just that he felt there was no other option at the time.  (By the way I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I mostly agree with you.)

 

 

Edit:

 

I personally would rather deal with a blackmailer who will try to ruin me if I don't do as he wants, than someone who has a sniper set on my closest friends if I don't do as he wants.

 

^ I should probably adjust this to say that I would still rather deal with a blackmailer who will try to ruin people close to me if I don't do as he wants, than someone who has a sniper set on my closest friends if I don't do as he wants.

 

Ruination is a horrible thing (I know well), but it takes more time, it can be better prepared for and hopefully counteracted with enough time, though some effects will always remain and there's a chance exoneration will come too late.  Death happens in a few seconds, and it's permanent.  One has the possibility or at least hope of being fixed (even if remote), the other doesn't.  Maybe that's why it feels worse to me.

 

Just thinking out loud again.

 

 

 

[Artemis]

I'm not finding his comment on Culverton Smith just now.  (Do you recall what scene it was in?)

 

It's here:

 

SHERLOCK (standing up): I need you to know, John – I need you to see that up here ... (he gestures to his temples with both hands) ... I’ve still got it, so when I tell you that this ... (he walks to the side table to point to the open laptop) ... is the most dangerous, the most despicable human being that I have ever encountered; when I tell you that this-this monster must be ended, please remember where you’re standing, because ... you’re standing exactly where I said you would be two weeks ago.

(Grimacing in pain, he slumps into a chair beside the table.)

SHERLOCK (more quietly): I’m a mess; I’m in hell; but I am not wrong, not about him.

 

A lot of people seem to be assuming that all of Magnussen's allegations are actually true, and that they all pertain to some sort of guilt.  But this isn't necessarily the case.  Some secrets, for example, could simply be old rumors that never had a bit of truth to them -- but people do tend to believe "where there's smoke, there's fire," especially if they read it in the paper.

 

I agree that CAM probably relies on actual guilt a good bit of the time -- it's just easier.  But that needn't be the case all of the time, or anywhere near it.

 

That did occur to me (i.e. "I don't have to prove it, I just have to print it."); but I've been more focused on what I think is the worst villainy of each villain, and printing lies about someone in a paper, while evil and destructive (we saw Moriarty do it), on its own is not as desperate of a situation as having something true used against you (in my opinion).  I think being in the situation of having to disprove a lie is the lesser of two evils, especially if you feel justifiably in the right and are the kind of person to believe that the truth will eventually come out.

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

I got the impression that Magnussen didn't just use actual crimes / bad or embarrassing deeds of his victims' but that he was also perfectly willing to twist innocent actions or just make stuff up if he couldn't find enough actual dirt on someone. "I don't have to prove it, I just have to print it."

 

Maybe I am also influenced by the portrayal of Millerton in the original story. Holmes makes it clear that the woman who is being targeted did nothing really bad, that the old love letters Millerton is threatening to expose are merely "imprudent". She didn't do anything awful, but the villain takes her little episode of harmless infatuation and turns it into a potentially life ruining mistake because he knows that her fiancee is rigid and proud enough to break off the engagement if he finds out about it. That will cause a public scandal and it won't matter any more what she actually did, once the rumor mill is finished with her, the lady will be a social outcast with no chance of ever finding a husband, basically her only career option in Victorian England.

 

Holmes does say that Milverton is too clever to target innocent people, but I think nobody is innocent enough to be invulnerable in that sense. Everyone makes mistakes and stupid decisions, that's just part of being human. Milverton doesn't seem to exploit people's crimes so much as their weaknesses and I find that despicable.

[T.o.b.y]

BTW, my stupid phone keeps changing "Milverton" to "Millerton". I am too lazy right now to go back and edit my post, so just ignore that, please. Thanks.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Ruination is a horrible thing (I know well), but it takes more time, it can be better prepared for and hopefully counteracted with enough time, though some effects will always remain and there's a chance exoneration will come too late.  Death happens in a few seconds, and it's permanent.  One has the possibility or at least hope of being fixed (even if remote), the other doesn't.  Maybe that's why it feels worse to me.

Also playing devil's advocate here too   for the sake of discussion.

I see it differently.

Moriarty's threat is permanent and immediate, but it gives Sherlock the solution to stop it right then and there. Sherlock knows what it is about at that very moment.

Magnussen's threat, like you said, takes more time, and the threat will remains until there is a solution, to end it, not to give in.

Because it's renewable contract to him. The things about blackmailing that I despise the most; it never ends and will be milked as long as it can. In M's case, his ideal situation was to get Mycroft's laptop, and it could be the very good source for multiple bigger scale terrors and manipulation, yet, at the same time, he was telling Sherlock that he was still entitled to more, and more, and more, if Sherlock wants Mary and John to be safe.

That makes it way worse to me.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I hadn't even thought of that. Good point.

[Artemis]

Because it's renewable contract to him. The things about blackmailing that I despise the most; it never ends and will be milked as long as it can.

I guess that's kind of what I mean though. It's a contract. It will be milked as long as it can, but that's only as long as you decide it is, because you actually have some say in the matter.

 

I keep thinking of other movies where I've seen blackmail. Someone usually asks for money in exchange for keeping a secret, and once it's given to them, they keep coming back for more. The solution is always to either turn it around on the blackmailer, or if that can't be done, to stop giving them what they want. Regardless of what the blackmailer is asking for or what they are threatening will happen if you don't give in to their demands, the solution remains the same.

 

Maybe I'm approaching it too much from the perspective of how I think I'd handle it if it happened to me. If someone tried to blackmail me, in most cases I'd say "Screw you!" and deal with the repercussions, because I'm not giving away control over me like that. Of course there are levels of blackmail, which make it harder. If the blackmailer pulled what Magnussen did and threatened me with the possible harm of a loved one, I'd probably be slower to say "Screw you," but I know eventually at some point it would still have to come back to that.

 

It's kind of related to what you posted in the John Watson thread about being in a relationship where a person threatens suicide if you leave them. That's a kind of emotional blackmail. I've been in that predicament, and again the only solution is to not let them control you like that. It is indeed much easier said than done, but you have to harden yourself and change your thinking until you decide that, like you said, it is not your cross to bear. You will probably still wrestle with crushing guilt for the rest of your life if they make good on that threat (because guilt is not very reasonable), but you can't allow that possibility to trap you under their control. You just can't.

 

That's why, although despicable, blackmail at this level doesn't seem like the worst type of villainy to me. Because much of it is under your own control if you just don't give them what they want.

 

On the other hand, if I came home tomorrow and someone was in my house and said, "There are guns pointed at your friends and family and I'll have them killed with the wave of my hand if you don't do as I say," (which could be considered another level of blackmail)... what the heck would I do? I can't just say "Screw you," the threat of death is imminent, there'd be no time at all for warnings or workarounds. (Or I could say "Screw you," but then they'd be dead immediately.) I'd have very little choice but to do what he wants in the moment if I wanted my loved ones to stay alive. The balance of power seems much more one-sided in that event.

 

In the context of the show, it's a little different, because Sherlock is a genius, and thus had more time to anticipate Moriarty's plan. But I have no doubt that Moriarty would pull a similar sort of threat on a goldfish who wouldn't be able to outwit him. In fact we know he did, with the jurors.

 

I think you could argue either way that the threat of death and the threat of ruination have the potential to be equally endless. A villain could make either threat over and over again, until they do it or are stopped. Both are bad; ruination could last a lifetime, and death ends a life. Just depends on which you consider the more serious of the two, I suppose.

 

I should stop here or I'll run the risk of repeating myself too much. My brains are shutting down because I am falling asleep where I sit. But with all that said, I still haven't really decided who I think is the worst villain. This is all still just me thinking it through.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Another case where it'd be awfully hard (and definitely problematical) to say "screw you" would be when making the secret public would tarnish the reputation of someone else, someone you love dearly -- especially a minor.

 

I think I've used something like this as an example a while back, maybe a couple years ago, but suppose your daughter was raped at age 12 and became pregnant.  You and she jointly decided that she would live with a friend of yours in another state while she carried the baby to term and put it up for adoption.  That was a year ago, and everythings fine -- but today Magnussen showed up with details and photos, threatening to print everything unless....

 

Do you do whatever he wants (even if it's illegal and/or unethical), do you try to bargain with him (we've seen how well *that* works :( ), or what?  The last thing I can imagine doing is to let him go ahead and spill your daughter's secret.  I don't think I'd even tell her about the demands, because a 13-year-old might not fully grasp what's at stake, namely her reputation, possibly for the rest of her life.  What if CAM released photos of her while hugely pregnant *without* mentioning the rape, leaving the impression that she was "putting out" at age 12?  Just imagine the 13-year-old boys lining up at your door!

[Arcadia]

 

Ugh, tastes differ... I hated what they did with Mary in The Lying Detective and it spoils the otherwise wonderful episode for me a bit.

 

Btw, speaking of villains, I am still a bit disappointed that they didn't go anywhere with Mary's sinister potential. She seemed more cut out for a grey character à la Irene than the Guardian Angel of Baker Street she finally became.

Yup.

I'm still wondering what is the big deal of her job that she said John wouldn't love her anymore if he saw the memory stick.

 

Same here. That's one of the points were the lack of continuity really bugs me, even though I suspected all along that she would turn out to actually be a "good guy."

 

I sometimes wonder if Moftiss were deliberately bad at continuity simply because Doyle sometimes was, and it amused them to follow suit.

 

 

Regarding the difference between Mary and Sherlock: Mary was an assassin while Sherlock, to John's knowledge at least, hadn't killed anybody before the Magnussen incident.

 

As a soldier himself, though, I doubt John is generally morally opposed to killing other people, in fact, he shot a man in cold blood the very first episode. I think what he really minded was being lied to. Mary thought him a "better man" than he really was.

 

And he thought her a better woman than she was . . .

 

Yeah. I sort of liked that part .... that none of them were the paragons of virtue that everyone around them seemed to want them to be. It humanizes the characters.

 

Working for a shadowy organization might have been enough on its own to make Mary a Magnusson target  . .  but I get the feeling that she was recruited by the CIA due to a criminal past of her own before she started killing under orders.  (cf. La Femme Nikita, remade as 'Point of No Return'--in which the heroine is forced to become a hired assassin for the government as an alternative to being executed for a murder she committed while high and attempting to rob a store.)  Something like that was in Mary's past, probably.

 

I agree, that is certainly the impression I got as well, mainly from Magnussen's remarks about her being a "bad girl." So unless CAM was making it up, that certainly seems the impression they were trying to give. 

 

Good points made about Magnussen, and I agree!

 

I think what's mainly stopping me from giving Magnussen my vote for "baddest" is that I feel like, in many cases, there would be a fairly simple (not easy) way to get out from under his control; which is to let the truth come out.  As a blackmailer, it seems like most of his power comes from people not wanting to face the consequences of their actions.  In a sense, he doesn't hold any actual power over them at all; it's their own secrets and mistakes that are holding them hostage (which is probably part of what he enjoys about it).  He is causing pain, but to an extent they're also doing it to themselves.  That's not to dismiss the fact that in some cases, such as Mary's, letting the truth come out could have life-threatening consequences for her and the people she loves.  But even so, it might still be better to deal with those consequences as they come and stop running and living in fear of them, rather than live under the thumb of an evil man forever.  Terrible things might befall you as a result, but you would be free, instead of being ruled by the fear of being found out.  Withholding the truth has just as much potential to ruin your life; that's how Sherlock ended up shot, and John and Mary's marriage started to fall apart.  Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying it's not evil what he does.  It is.

 

​THANK YOU! :d

[Arcadia]

That brings a question to mind.  Which villain *does* Sherlock think is worst?  I know that in ACD canon, it seems to be Milverton (Magnussen); or at least that case could be made.  But what would BBC Sherlock say?  In TLD, I recall him saying that Culverton was "the most dangerous and most despicable human being he had ever encountered," or something to that effect.

 

 

SHERLOCK (standing up): I need you to know, John – I need you to see that up here ... (he gestures to his temples with both hands) ... I’ve still got it, so when I tell you that this ... (he walks to the side table to point to the open laptop) ... is the most dangerous, the most despicable human being that I have ever encountered; when I tell you that this-this monster must be ended, please remember where you’re standing, because ... you’re standing exactly where I said you would be two weeks ago.

 

I observe that Sherlock says Magnussen turns his stomach, but that Smith is dangerous and despicable. So on an emotional level, he hates CAM the most ... but on an intellectual level, he finds Smith to be the most monstrous ... ? Although to be honest, I suspect Sherlock of employing a little exaggeration :o in both descriptions ....

[Artemis]

I observe that Sherlock says Magnussen turns his stomach, but that Smith is dangerous and despicable. So on an emotional level, he hates CAM the most ... but on an intellectual level, he finds Smith to be the most monstrous ... ? Although to be honest, I suspect Sherlock of employing a little exaggeration :o in both descriptions ....

 

That's a good point; I think I feel the same way, and that's where I'm wavering a bit: One villain is worse to me on an intellectual level, and another is worse on an emotional level.

 

I think who Sherlock hates most is generally agreed on, but the original question as posed was a little different in my mind.

 

Which villain do you think is / was the worst?

I meant worst as in "baddest". Most villainous, most despicable, etc.

 

Would he say that Magnussen is the "worst, 'baddest', most villainous, most despicable," because he hates him?  He called Culverton "most despicable," which is why the question came to mind.

 

 

[Arcadia]

Well, I would say that if we want a "canon" explanation, then yeah ... Sherlock's emotional reaction to Magnussen's creepiness, like the audience's, colors his perception of how villainous the man is. Let's face it, blackmailing aside, CAM is still a disgusting, perverted human being who enjoys humiliating people, and is so self-assured of his invulnerability that he doesn't disguise what he is. But being a jerk isn't illegal; it's the blackmail that makes him a criminal. Whereas Smith, the murderer, hides behind a façade of geniality. And I can see Sherlock being more offended by the former, even while he recognizes the despicableness of the latter.
 
Which leads me to wonder if the original question really makes sense; at this level of depravity, can any one person truly be worse than another? All three of the "big bads" destroyed a multitude of lives in one fashion or another, simply for their own pleasure. Hard to get worse than that. (I exclude Eurus because I don't see that she got any enjoyment from it ... she's just insane, imo. Not really responsible for her actions. I end up pitying her as a result.) At any rate, I still can't come up with a definitive answer to "who is the worst villain." To me they're all thoroughly evil, just in different ways. Moriarty gets a bit of a break from me only because he's also entertaining.

[Artemis]

^ Agreed!

 

 

[gerry]

Regarding the difference between Mary and Sherlock: Mary was an assassin while Sherlock, to John's knowledge at least, hadn't killed anybody before the Magnussen incident.

 

As a soldier himself, though, I doubt John is generally morally opposed to killing other people, in fact, he shot a man in cold blood the very first episode. I think what he really minded was being lied to. Mary thought him a "better man" than he really was.

Do you really think that john shooting the cabby was murdering in cold blood? I think he thought Sherlock was in immediate mortal danger because of the poison pill Sherlock looked like he was being forced to swallow like the other murder victims. To me, that was justifiable homicide similar to a police officer killing a suspect who is causing immediate physical danger to someone. That isn’t remotely close to Sherlock killing Magnussen who was unarmed and not threatening anyone physically because he couldn’t figure out a way to outsmart him in that moment or Mary who apparently assassinated people for simply profit, not for a government or any other moral high ground.

 

I don’t know, the only really grey/morally questionable of John’s actions to me was his beating up Sherlock.