Episode 1.3, "The Great Game"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yeah....and how many friends had Sherlock made in the last two years?  Heh.....he only still had one....John Watson.  Maybe not so mocking but a little bitter?  Maybe Mycroft had hoped that the friendship would be severed once Sherlock made his big reveal?  Hoped that John would never forgive him and Sherlock would seek Mycroft out for something to take his mind of it?  That would put younger brother right where Big Brother wanted him?

 

Or maybe it was a reference to the reason why Sherlock had had to through with "TRF"  for three people? And now that included Molly?

[Dragonslayer]

Yeah....and how many friends had Sherlock made in the last two years?  Heh.....he only still had one....John Watson.  

He may not admit it, but I think Ms.Hudson falls strongly in the category of a "friend". It is blatantly clear in the "The falling burglar" scene from "Scandal".

I am not very sure, if he considers Lestrade a friend though. Atleast not that close. Well, he doesn't dislike him unlike the other staff from NSY.

But would Sherlock have tried to jump off the building had Moriarty targeted only Lestrade, not John or Mrs.Hudson? I have my doubts.

 

Back to the above quote. I don't want to stir up the anger here, but I think *coughcough*Mary*coughcough* comes in as a "friend" as well. Atleast till HLV.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I was thinking of new friends.....none. But oh yeah, Mrs. Hudson was definitely someone Sherlock was close to and you didn't want to mess with her. But did he confide in her......with her hip she didn't seem to be running around London and taking notes and correcting his anti-social behavior as John at least tried. Actually, she seemed to encourage him. "A nice murder, that will cheer you up" and that sort of thing.

 

It has been said by behavioral scientists that children respect the parent or any grownup who will help them establish boundaries. Sherlock, in more then one meta, has been said to have the social mindset of a preteen. John did set boundaries....or at least tried. He did yell at Sherlock. As early as "A Study In Pink" when Sherlock wonders why a dead child would mean so much to a mother and the room goes silent...it's to John he looks to..."A bit not good?" 

 

Lestrade, I think, also has a part in this unfortunately he can't be on Sherlock's case 24/7 like John is. But Sherlock does respect him but it is John who he can turn to, always. No matter how angry, disappointed, hurt he is by Sherlock, no matter if he does storm out.....it is he always comes back and not because he needs Sherlock but just because he can and he wants to come back and I think that is the big difference. That is what makes John the true friend in every sense of the word. Something Sherlock had never had before.

 

Mary may be a new friend....aaahheeemmm.....but she's not going to be yelling at him about boundaries seeing how she's got less then Sherlock. Poor John.....as if Sherlock wasn't bad enough?

[Caya]

 

Back to the above quote. I don't want to stir up the anger here, but I think *coughcough*Mary*coughcough* comes in as a "friend" as well. Atleast till HLV.

 

German has a saying that roughly translates as, "With that kind of friend, who needs enemies?" - does English have one like that too? Although the kids today simply call that a frenemy, I think.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

The English version is pretty much the same, Cara.  Here is New England anyway it's more like "With a friend like that, who needs enemies."  A little different wording but not by much.

[Arcadia]

In the end of ASiP, Mycroft says, "He could be the making of my brother - or make him worse than ever." Meaning...? What about John could make Sherlock better - or worse? John is a lot more socially adept than Sherlock, no doubt about it, but does Mycroft care about that? Doubtful. 'Caring is not at advantage.' He wants Sherlock to stay sharp, alive, and maybe free from emotional hurt. Perhaps the latter is the key to answering my question. John could indeed provide emotional comfort by being Sherlock's friend, but could also hurt him more deeply than anyone; make him more compromised. Is it the emotional pain Mycroft is worried about, though, or does he think it beneath both him and Sherlock to even feel that?

 

Just wondering...

I actually had a brilliant insight into this scene a week or so ago, but you will just have to take my word for it because it's flown out of my mind since.

 

All I'm left with is my original impression; Mycroft seems to regard Sherlock as a loose cannon, in some ways not much different than the criminals he pursues. So I'm guessing he thought John might provide a moral compass. As to how John could make Sherlock worse -- I think it could be argued that he has ... he murdered a man for John. But surely that's not what Mycroft meant, at least not precisely. Still, maybe ... the danger John presents to Sherlock is that he could influence Sherlock to listen to his heart, not his head..... and Mycroft fears what Sherlock might do if that happened? And it did happen. So Mycroft might be right. Noooooo!!!!! Thank goodness the story's not over yet.  

[Arcadia]

Just watched TGG again recently. Either I'm dense or I noticed this before and forgot it ... but I was struck by the parallel between Jim's "That's what people DO!" line, and Sherlock's attitude throughout the episode. ("Will caring help save them?") I know the two men were supposed to be mirrors of one another but I don't remember making this particular connection before -- both of them claiming to not care about people's lives.

Turn it around and it also implies that Jim - just like Sherlock - has a heart that can be hurt too.

It's funny, because Sherlock's right ... and yet John demonstrates how much better the world is when there's a little sympathy and kindness to grease the wheels. Caring does help save people, just in a different way.

 

Love stuff like this....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

It's funny, because Sherlock's right ... and yet John demonstrates how much better the world is when there's a little sympathy and kindness to grease the wheels. Caring does help save people, just in a different way.

 

  I think that that may be what Sherlock is alluding to in his "Best Man Speech".  Yes John did save his life literally by shooting Jeff Hope....but on another level, John may have saved Sherlock just by being the caring, compassionate flat mate.  Like Sherlock said: "I may solve your murder, John Watson will save your life."

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

It's funny, because Sherlock's right ... and yet John demonstrates how much better the world is when there's a little sympathy and kindness to grease the wheels. Caring does help save people, just in a different way.

 

  I think that that may be what Sherlock is alluding to in his "Best Man Speech".  Yes John did save his life literally by shooting Jeff Hope....but on another level, John may have saved Sherlock just by being the caring, compassionate flat mate.  Like Sherlock said: "I may solve your murder, John Watson will save your life."

 

What I really like about all this is that seen by himself and compared to other people who are not Sherlock, John really isn't all that caring or compassionate. That is particularly evident in the scene with Kate in His Last Vow, but there were plenty of hints before. John is actually a pretty damaged individual, if you ask me, and as a veteran not only of war but also "Bart's bloody hospital", he wouldn't be able to afford too much empathy unless he wanted to go round the bend.

 

But John is most often compared to Sherlock, in our eyes at least and certainly in Sherlock's own, so of course he appears very "human" and warm-hearted and conscientious by comparison.

 

I guess you could say that like John "believes in Sherlock Holmes" long after other characters have called more than half his bluffs, so does Sherlock really believe in John Watson, the Good Man. It's rather touching...

 

Apart from shooting the cabbie, when did John actually save Sherlock's life to our knowledge? I can't think of anything. I could name at least three instances of Dr Watson saving Holmes from certain death in my beloved old stories, but John...?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Apart from shooting the cabbie, when did John actually save Sherlock's life to our knowledge? I can't think of anything. I could name at least three instances of Dr Watson saving Holmes from certain death in my beloved old stories, but John...?

 

 

  It was the implication I got from the speech.....or more to the point....Sherlock's facial expressions and tonal inflections as he is saying those lines. There are great blocks of time and therefore events that the audience isn't given privy to. Canon or not.

 

 

[Arcadia]

 

It's funny, because Sherlock's right ... and yet John demonstrates how much better the world is when there's a little sympathy and kindness to grease the wheels. Caring does help save people, just in a different way.

 

  I think that that may be what Sherlock is alluding to in his "Best Man Speech".  Yes John did save his life literally by shooting Jeff Hope....but on another level, John may have saved Sherlock just by being the caring, compassionate flat mate.  Like Sherlock said: "I may solve your murder, John Watson will save your life."

 

Absolutely, that's what I thought too.

 

Apart from shooting the cabbie, when did John actually save Sherlock's life to our knowledge? I can't think of anything. I could name at least three instances of Dr Watson saving Holmes from certain death in my beloved old stories, but John...?

Hmmmm.... does John tackling The Golem count? They saved each other, there. And, um, shooting the hound? But yeah, I've always assumed there's all sorts of stories we haven't been privy to where all sorts of life saving may have taken place.

 

Hey, maybe S4 will consist solely of flashbacks to cases from previous years......

[Carol the Dabbler]

I just noticed something I'd never caught before.  I had noticed the "Lost Vermeer" banner on the television news in the background at Sarah's flat -- a nice hint of the upcoming case.  But I'd never noticed an even earlier reference.

 

Toward the end of the "shoot the wall" scene, when Sherlock finally settles down and flops onto the sofa with a magazine -- what is on the cover of said magazine but (aw, you peeked!) "The Lost Vermeer."

 

I love the way they tie things together like that.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

... seen by himself and compared to other people who are not Sherlock, John really isn't all that caring or compassionate. That is particularly evident in the scene with Kate in His Last Vow, but there were plenty of hints before. John is actually a pretty damaged individual, if you ask me....

 

While I agree that John is no bleeding heart, I don't see evidence of his being terribly "damaged."  That may be because I don't want to see it, of course.  But Kate woke him out of a nightmare, so he was understandably (I think) disoriented, and I personally wouldn't put too much faith in that scene as evidence that he doesn't care about people.  Besides, if going off to rescue her son from a drug den (armed with only a tire iron) isn't evidence of caring and compassion, I don't know what would be.

 

... and as a veteran not only of war but also "Bart's bloody hospital", he wouldn't be able to afford too much empathy unless he wanted to go round the bend.

 

Precisely!  As both a doctor and a soldier, John has learned to maintain a certain professional detachment -- otherwise, he'd often be too shook up to do his job properly.  I don't think that means he doesn't care, merely that he reserves acting like he cares for times when he can afford to do so.

 

There may also be times when he reacts like a "normal human" despite his training -- for example, when he discovers Soo Lin's body in "Blind Banker," for just a moment it looks to me like he goes queasy.  But then his training takes over once more.

 

[jesskayding]

Ok. So upon rewatch of TGG... I think Johns blog triggered Moriarty to want to teach Sherlock a lesson upon learning about his limited knowledge of the Solar system. So then he devised this "game" where the second to last challenge gives him a mere 10 seconds to figure out how the painting was fake, with the life of a young child on the line.

 

I bet you Sherlock studied up & is now an expert on the solar system.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Could be, but if so, then Moriarty doesn't know much about astronomy either -- because supernovas take place far outside our solar system, often in other galaxies.  They are basically exploding stars.

 

Perhaps a supernova could take place within our solar system -- but if it did, that would mean our sun had blown up!

 

[jesskayding]

Ohhhhh.

[sfmpco]

So why... if Mycroft's powers of deduction are so much greater than Sherlock's, would Mycroft hope that Sherlock would be able to figure out how the MI6 agent ended up on the train tracks just based on the information Mycroft gave John?

 

To me it seems that:

 

1) Mycroft likes giving government assignments to Sherlock just to keep him under his thumb

2) Sherlock has done many assignments from Mycroft - which harks to the "just like old times" line in TSOT

 

 

[sfmpco]

And another thing... Carl Powers died in 1989.  Sherlock says he was just a kid then - BC was born in 1976 which makes him 13 in 1989.  Andrew Scott was also born in 1976, so also 13 - point being that both actors are playing men about the same age and that Moriarty killed Carl Powers when Moriarty was quite young.  And not just killed him but did it in a very deliberately clever way.

[Arcadia]

Well, I think he wanted Sherlock to do the legwork, not solve the case only based on the information he gave John. Myrcroft rather famously detests the legwork!

 

But I still think both your conclusions are correct. Based on his remarks in ASiP, it seems Mycroft thinks Sherlock is wasted as a detective and should instead be working for him.

 

 

 

*sigh* again, I'm lagging behind. That was a response to your previous post, obviously.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh I think it is absolutely correct that Mycroft thinks Sherlock is wasting his time and talents being a detective. But as already posted, Mycroft was extremely lazy and detested leg work. It was just easier for Sherlock to do it. Sherlock also had the trust of "The Palace". This would especially bare out if he was indeed a "Queen's Messenger" maybe an appointment given because he kept turning down knighthoods, at least in canon.

[sfmpco]

Although his "There's the knighthood in the bag" in ASIB says to me that he's not altogether opposed to a knighthood either.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Not at this point in his life anyway. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the future as he matures more.

[sfmpco]

Looking forward to maturing Sherlock!

[Arcadia]

Sherlock also had the trust of "The Palace". This would especially bare out if he was indeed a "Queen's Messenger" maybe an appointment given because he kept turning down knighthoods, at least in canon.

Ooooh, I've not heard of this. What does "Queen's Messenger" signify?

 

 

Oh, and somewhere in TGG it's indicated that Sherlock has other contacts besides Mycroft in the government, yes? So when Mycroft needs some sensitive work done, Sherlock is one of the people other members of the gov't think they can trust?

[sfmpco]

Yes, he says someone at the Home Office owes him a favor.