Episode 2.1, "A Scandal In Belgravia"

[Hikari]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Well, yeah, there's that too. I remember when I was having trouble with a guy who had taken a dislike to me and causing me some trouble. That was everyone's theory -- that he secretly liked me and that's how he was showing it. Until I pointed out that he was gay.

Phil was the guy that Sherlock described as "Morbidly obese, the undisguised halitosis of a single man living on his own, the right sleeve of an internet porn addict and the breathing pattern of an untreated heart condition. Low self-esteem, tiny IQ and a limited life expectancy –" Honestly, I think that's just as bad, if not worse, than commenting on Molly's attempts to draw attention to her mouth and breasts. I just care about her feelings more!

And I think Sherlock notices everything about everyone, he just doesn't always vocalize it. But I doubt he's secretly in love with Phil. Although that does open up some intriguing story possibilities...... hmm.....

No, Sherl is not secretly in love with 'Phil' . . why did they have to give him the same name as Anderson?

(Anderlock is a whole other subject for another day.)

Re. Sherlolly . . I think of it as a lovely idea . . if only Sherlock were more normal boyfriend material.  Basically Molly is the fan stand-in/wish-fulfillment character for all the viewers watching who are in love with Sherlock themselves but feel far too ordinary to be noticed.  Sherl includes Molly in the very limited circle of his friends, and even deems her the 'one who counted most', (vis. the Reichenbach gambit, not, probably, in other more emotional realms.)  Sherlock is awfully abusive to his friends.  Lestrade, John & Mrs. H., the other three in the named circle of FoS (Friends of Sherl) get their fair share, too.

But . . .Sherlock's insults toward Molly take on a decidedly sexual overtone.  He belittles others for their lack of brain power, but not for the size of their boobs.  Not even Phil, whose boobs are 4x larger than Molly's.  Of course, Molly is the only one who is in love with him, and his insults go directly to the area of her greatest vulnerability.  Which, if he has no regard for her, is about the cruelest he could possibly be. 

I do not like the notion of a Sherlock who is that cruel.  That would be the actions of the sociopath which he always claims he is, but that's only his B-A disguise.  I choose the path of believing that Sherlock's insults to Molly are personalized to especially wound as a defense mechanism.  Not that he dreams of white picket fences and family with her . . he wounds to drive her away because in his deepest core he knows that Molly deserves a better man than he can ever be to her.  He is cruel to be kind--to wean her off him.

Meanwhile I note that Molly Hooper is the only person who can induce Sherlock Holmes to apologize.  He fights the suggestion when John *tells* him to apologize to Mrs. H., but when he hurts Molly at Christmas, he spontaneously offers an apology.  Based on Watson's face at that moment, that's the first time John has ever experienced Sherlock Holmes being spontaneously contrite. 

[Pseudonym]

11 minutes ago, Hikari said:

But . . .Sherlock's insults toward Molly take on a decidedly sexual overtone.  He belittles others for their lack of brain power, but not for the size of their boobs.  Not even Phil, whose boobs are 4x larger than Molly's.  Of course, Molly is the only one who is in love with him, and his insults go directly to the area of her greatest vulnerability.  Which, if he has no regard for her, is about the cruelest he could possibly be. 

I do not like the notion of a Sherlock who is that cruel.  That would be the actions of the sociopath which he always claims he is, but that's only his B-A disguise.  I choose the path of believing that Sherlock's insults to Molly are personalized to especially wound as a defense mechanism.  

I think that might be why it bothers me more than his many other insults. And the only way I could find it okay is if it is to get her to back off and look elsewhere. At the drooling Greg for example.  

[Hikari]

53 minutes ago, Pseudonym said:

I think that might be why it bothers me more than his many other insults. And the only way I could find it okay is if it is to get her to back off and look elsewhere. At the drooling Greg for example.  

I think Greg is a much better match for Molly, also.  He's an older man, but who cares when that Silver Fox is available.  And so appreciative.  And a kind person, despite his grisy high-pressure job.  Look how he bends over backwards to avoid giving Holmes and Watson a criminal record even when they deserve one.  (Use of a controlled substance for SH; public intoxication and breaching the peace for both . .)  They both work for law enforcement and like pubs and parks.

'Available, appreciative and kind' . . three things Sherl will never be, not without extreme (and erratic) effort.  I think after S4, Molly may have finally gotten over Sherl.  The love will never go away but it will become more platonic in nature and she will say goodbye to her desperate hope.  Greg is waiting to offer comfort and support, at which he does so excel.  Plus he's hot and he's never done drugs or insulted women . .not even his ex-wife who slept with the P.E. teacher.

[Arcadia]

After reading the script (and no, it's not that different from the show, except for the things I cited above. It's just that reading and watching bring different things into focus.) -- Ahem. As I was saying, after reading the script -- what I thought was that he admired Irene's audacity. She dared to be just as cold and heartless and manipulative as he was, and she got away with it, just like he does. That, and he enjoyed the challenge. But love? Nah.

But there's a neat twist in the middle when he hurts Molly by being such an s.o.b., and realizes it, and takes steps to correct it. So while he may admire (and possibly (?) entertain some feelings for) Irene, it's Molly that earns a glimpse of his humanity. For whatever that portends.

ETA: Okay, somehow I missed seeing the 4-5 posts before this one. But I think it still makes sense?

[Arcadia]

1 hour ago, Hikari said:

I choose the path of believing that Sherlock's insults to Molly are personalized to especially wound as a defense mechanism.  Not that he dreams of white picket fences and family with her . . he wounds to drive her away because in his deepest core he knows that Molly deserves a better man than he can ever be to her.

Yep.  

[Hikari]

22 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

After reading the script (and no, it's not that different from the show, except for the things I cited. It's just that reading and watching call different things into focus.) -- Ahem. As I was saying, after reading the script -- what I thought was that he admired Irene's audacity. She dared to be just as cold and heartless and manipulative as he was, and she got away with it, just like he does. That, and he enjoyed the challenge.

Only there's a neat twist in the middle when he hurts Molly by being such an s.o.b., and realizes it, and takes steps to correct it. So while he may admire (and possibly (?) entertain some feelings for) Irene, it's Molly that earns a glimpse of his humanity. For whatever that portends.

Well put.  I think Sherl regards Molly as a little sister, really.  When he says 'I love you' in S4 under duress, he does mean it . . just not in the way that she's been hoping.  If John is his brother-in-arms, Molly is the sweet, giving, reliable, devoted little sister that Euros could never have been.  Molly is family in the way that John is family--and why he entrusted her with such a crucial role in the Reichenbach plot.  Had Molly not fulfilled her part perfectly, or been willing to put her job and reputation on the line like that, 'Lazarus' would have flopped.  So SH can be casually cruel/flippant toward her, wheedle her into doing his dirty work and be otherwise incredibly thoughtless, but when his back was to the wall, she was his go-to person.  Kind of just like a sibling relationship in fact. 

[Hikari]

2 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Yep.  

Where's this picture from?  That's not 'Patrick' . . hair's way too normal. 

[Arcadia]

4 minutes ago, Hikari said:

Where's this picture from?  That's not 'Patrick' . . hair's way too normal. 

That's from the short-lived series "Fortysomething." BC played Hugh Laurie's 20-something son.

[gerry]

4 hours ago, Hikari said:

I choose the path of believing that Sherlock's insults to Molly are personalized to especially wound as a defense mechanism.   

You choose to believe it so it’s not based in anything that happened in the show?

[gerry]

11 hours ago, Hikari said:

So SH can be casually cruel/flippant toward her, wheedle her into doing his dirty work and be otherwise incredibly thoughtless, but when his back was to the wall, she was his go-to person.  Kind of just like a sibling relationship in fact. 

That describes his relationship with Mycroft but not sure about Molly.  When brothers insult a sister it doesn’t usually include their boobs or other body parts.  ETA:Mary and Sherlock had a much more brother/sister vibe to me and it didn’t require a bunch of cruel insults.

Maybe a better way of asking my question is this. If you think of someone as a sibling, which is more or less of a safe person in your life to you, why would that invoke a defensive response?  Also in the context of the scene, I fail to see what was done to him that would elicit a defensive response.  He was a bastard to John’s girlfriend too.   Is he afraid of her getting too close to him too?  This defenive response excuse just makes no sense to me given his overall behavior, in that scene or otherwise.  No one was holding a gun to his head to make him stay at the xmas party.  Maybe it’s as simple as he just likes being a bastard when he feels like it.

[Hikari]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 9:06 PM, gerry said:

That describes his relationship with Mycroft but not sure about Molly.  When brothers insult a sister it doesn’t usually include their boobs or other body parts.  ETA:Mary and Sherlock had a much more brother/sister vibe to me and it didn’t require a bunch of cruel insults.

Maybe a better way of asking my question is this. If you think of someone as a sibling, which is more or less of a safe person in your life to you, why would that invoke a defensive response?  Also in the context of the scene, I fail to see what was done to him that would elicit a defensive response.  He was a bastard to John’s girlfriend too.   Is he afraid of her getting too close to him too?  This defenive response excuse just makes no sense to me given his overall behavior, in that scene or otherwise.  No one was holding a gun to his head to make him stay at the xmas party.  Maybe it’s as simple as he just likes being a bastard when he feels like it.

gerry

You can always be counted on to provide the devil's advocate point of view where Sherlock is concerned.  Your comments always add piquancy to our threads and you provide food for thought, but I confess to being curious about why you choose to watch the show/participate in our discussions when you seem to be consistently hostile toward Sherlock as a character.  He is a bundle of contradictory impulses, with flaws, and yet, he is meant to be our hero in these proceedings.  It seems to me like you don't see anything good in Sherlock.   Do you have any thoughts to contribute about why this is?  I'm surprised that you'd care to invest so much time discussing a character which you seem to regard as a loser at best or actively malignant at worst. 

How do you feel about Jim Moriarty?   Do you think he's the true hero of our piece and just misunderstood?

**************

I think that Sherl's and Molly's relationship has developed over time into the regard that I mentioned, that he views her as 'family'.  I agree that it would be weird, if not criminal, to sexualize your 'sister' when you are insulting her . . but at the time of the Christmas drinkies scene, we are still very early on in the series.  Molly's desperate romantic obsession with Sherl is uncomfortably obvious for everyone to see--and if 'ordinary people' are picking up on it, we can imagine how much worse it must be for SH.  Nobody was holding a gun to his head at the Christmas party, it's true--but seeing as the drinkies were being held in his own home and it was snowing out, it's hardly surprising that he chose to stay, even with the 'people' present.

In TRF, Molly proved herself in a test by fire that she was more than just the silly, lovesick little girl who was pining after Sherlock.  She became instrumental in the success of his plan--and she executed her part flawlessly.  Then came the two years apart, to further moderate her feelings.   Sherl will never view her as a romantic prospect, and for her part, there will always be a tinge of 'If only . .' where he is concerned.  But he does feel something for her--she was the very first person he came to see upon his return, after John.  That elevates her into something more than 'That annoying but occasionally useful girl who has a crush on me' in my view.

 

[gerry]

On 4/3/2018 at 7:55 AM, Hikari said:

.....but I confess to being curious about why you choose to watch the show/participate in our discussions when you seem to be consistently hostile toward Sherlock as a character. ....

How do you feel about Jim Moriarty?   Do you think he's the true hero of our piece and just misunderstood?

I watched the show because I found Sherlock to be an interesting protagonist which is the same reason I watched Walter White or am watching Raymond Reddington.  I don’t find him evil a la Moriarty but I don’t find him heroic either.  I don’t find people who treat people poorly even those he claims are friends, who murder in cold blood, whose arrogance is so high that he egged on a gun wielding woman which lead to the death of his best friend’s wife, let his best friend believe he was dead for two years while having no concept of said best friend’s feelings on the topic, etc. heroic or all that reflective of a good person.  That doesn’t even count how he has treated women like Molly and Janine.  I do believe his love for John and Mrs. H. is genuine but everyone else not so sure. Either way, how he chooses to behave leaves a lot to be desired, that’s for sure.  

I’m not hostile towards Sherlock, I just find the excuses I read here for his behavior both fascinating and confounding.  No matter how deplorable Sherlock is, it’s somehow ok.  It’s blind love I guess.

[gerry]

On 4/3/2018 at 7:55 AM, Hikari said:

I think that Sherl's and Molly's relationship has developed over time into the regard that I mentioned, that he views her as 'family'.  I agree that it would be weird, if not criminal, to sexualize your 'sister' when you are insulting her . . but at the time of the Christmas drinkies scene, we are still very early on in the series.  Molly's desperate romantic obsession with Sherl is uncomfortably obvious for everyone to see--and if 'ordinary people' are picking up on it, we can imagine how much worse it must be for SH.  Nobody was holding a gun to his head at the Christmas party, it's true--but seeing as the drinkies were being held in his own home and it was snowing out, it's hardly surprising that he chose to stay, even with the 'people' present.

In TRF, Molly proved herself in a test by fire that she was more than just the silly, lovesick little girl who was pining after Sherlock.  She became instrumental in the success of his plan--and she executed her part flawlessly.  Then came the two years apart, to further moderate her feelings.   Sherl will never view her as a romantic prospect, and for her part, there will always be a tinge of 'If only . .' where he is concerned.  But he does feel something for her--she was the very first person he came to see upon his return, after John.  That elevates her into something more than 'That annoying but occasionally useful girl who has a crush on me' in my view.

I have never thought that Sherlock sees Molly, or Lestrade for that matter, as family.  Friends or colleagues he cares about, maybe, but not family on the level of his relationships with Mrs. H or John.  Also, If Molly’s feelings were so obvious to him which justifies his attitude towards her in the xmas scene, then why was Sherlock in the process of deducing that she had a boyfriend (other than him) that she was dressed up for?  If Sherlock didn’t want to be there, I’m sure he could have found somewhere else to be, snow or not.  Either way, he was an unprovoked jerk to everyone there.  What crime did John’s girlfriend or Molly commit other than being invited to the party?

Do you really think Molly’s feelings have moderated?  I thought the point of the ILY call scene was that they hadn’t which is why she said “because it’s true” while refusing to say it. If she had moved on to the wistful “if only...”, I don’t believe her response to the request would have been so strong.  In fact, I thought the premise of the scene was because Molly wasn’t over her feelings for Sherlock, otherwise the scene wouldn’t have had any emotional impact.

I don’t know what he feels for Molly other than someone he knows he can rely on, or use, depending on your view.  I do find it a bit strange though that Molly had to risk her career for him to take her remotely seriously while all John had to do was be his roommate!  

[Carol the Dabbler]

51 minutes ago, gerry said:

I watched the show because I found Sherlock to be an interesting protagonist which is the same reason I watched Walter White or am watching Raymond Reddington.  I don’t find him evil a la Moriarty but I don’t find him heroic either.  I don’t find people who treat people poorly even those he claims are friends, who murder in cold blood, whose arrogance is so high that he egged on a gun wielding woman which lead to the death of his best friend’s wife, let his best friend believe he was dead for two years while having no concept of said best friend’s feelings on the topic, etc. heroic or all that reflective of a good person.  That doesn’t even count how he has treated women like Molly and Janine.  I do believe his love for John and Mrs. H. is genuine but everyone else not so sure. Either way, how he chooses to behave leaves a lot to be desired, that’s for sure.  

I’m not hostile towards Sherlock, I just find the excuses I read here for his behavior both fascinating and confounding.  No matter how deplorable Sherlock is, it’s somehow ok.  It’s blind love I guess.

I cannot argue with any of that.  I personally find Sherlock interesting, intriguing, and sometimes likable, or at least someone I can sympathize with at the moment.

But with one notable exception, I do not find him heroic, though he's at least inching his way toward "good" (I think Lestrade kinda jumped the gun on that one, apparently so Moftiss could tick that particular box).

[T.o.b.y]

I like many fictional characters who I would probably detest in real life. 

Btw, I don't think being heroic is only for "good" characters. Heroism doesn't require you to be a decent person in general. 

I think some of the stuff Sherlock does is appalling (especially the fake suicide), some is heroic and most of it is just plain entertaining. 

[J.P.]

This is the luxury we don't have in RL - to like the bad guys.

[Arcadia]

8 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I cannot argue with any of that.  I personally find Sherlock interesting, intriguing, and sometimes likable, or at least someone I can sympathize with at the moment.

But with one notable exception, I do not find him heroic, though he's at least inching his way toward "good" (I think Lestrade kinda jumped the gun on that one, apparently so Moftiss could tick that particular box).

What's the exception?

I find I don't think about him that way ... for me, and I suspect many of us, it's more about identifying with him than admiring or respecting him. Whether it's the way he's written or the actor playing him, or some alchemic combination of the two, somehow I just feel like he's one of "my" people; the outsiders, the loners, the socially inept. Which is ridiculous, of course, because I'm not really like that; but the feeling's still there. Since I rather enjoy the sensation I'm not trying too hard to make sense of it.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

12 hours ago, Arcadia said:

What's the exception?

I still consider stepping off of a four-story building in order to save one's friends pretty heroic.  I know that you feel the explanations in TEH kinda ruined that -- but in my opinion those need to be taken with a few shakes of salt.  As shown, they just don't work, so they may well be merely Anderson's best guess, for all we know.

Hmm, yeah, that's gotta be what they are.  Never thought of it quite this way before, but it really works as Anderson standing in for the fans, trying to make sense of it all (and finally giving up!).  That explains why Sherlock would be explaining to Anderson, of all people (he wasn't), and why that scene doesn't fit chronologically (it's just a daydream).

So we never really got an official explanation -- which was probably a wise choice on Moftiss's part, considering the corner they'd painted themselves into.  And I choose to consider that one act to be heroic, even if I still don't understand quite how it all hangs together.

[T.o.b.y]

To me, the most heroic scene is when Sherlock shoots Magnussen. The Fall was really "just a magic trick" for the most part but that was unplanned and raw. He didn't put his life on the line there but he did sacrifice his new found humanity - performing an evil act to prevent greater evil. That's what I meant when I said that heroism isn't necessarily good and heroes can be bad people. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I personally don't think shooting CAM means Sherlock is a bad person -- as you say, he could find no good alternative.  But I think you've made a good point.

I think The Fall was pretty heroic as well, though.  Even if Anderson was right about Big Blue and even if the Holmes Brothers did somehow manage to flowchart every single possibility (which I doubt, especially considering the look on Sherlock's face when Moriarty shot himself), there is really no way to make that sort of stunt perfectly safe, particularly when you can't use wires and fake camera angles.  Which is to say, he really did risk his life for his friends.

[T.o.b.y]

2 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I personally don't think shooting CAM means Sherlock is a bad person -- as you say, he could find no good alternative.  But I think you've made a good point.

I think The Fall was pretty heroic as well, though.  Even if Anderson was right about Big Blue and even if the Holmes Brothers did somehow manage to flowchart every single possibility (which I doubt, especially considering the look on Sherlock's face when Moriarty shot himself), there is really no way to make that sort of stunt perfectly safe, particularly when you can't use wires and fake camera angles.  Which is to say, he really did risk his life for his friends.

I am not entirely convinced but I love the ambiguity: we will never know for sure how much hero and how much sociopath Sherlock really is, how genuine or how disingenuous, how noble or how cunning. For me, this is the real suspense of the show. And I love it. 

I am not even sure whether Irene is all bad. With her, I often wonder how much of a victim she is vs how much of a villain. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, T.o.b.y said:

I am not even sure whether Irene is all bad. With her, I often wonder how much of a victim she is vs how much of a villain. 

I think we're supposed to see her as a victim in the end.

But then I remember that corpse with the bashed-in face.  Whoever she was, I can't believe that an Irene body double just *happened* to show up in a Greater London morgue right when needed.

Irene is at best a murderer.

[Pseudonym]

I don't like Irene, but I don't think she's all bad. I think she's just ruthless and entirely focused on looking out for number one. 

I can't remember, when she faked her death was that to get away from the Americans? She was still in cahoots with Moriarty, wasn't she? So I'd imagine she said to him 'I need to disappear," and he supplied the fake corpse. It's possible she thought it was going to be in a similar way to the guy from Janus cars, but since she was dealing directly with Sherlock she had to know that type of trick wouldn't be enough to work. If she didn't think she was asking for a double to be murdered it would have been incredibly naive. 

I definitely prefer villains who aren't just moustache-twirling evil. Real life isn't that black and white and I always roll my eyes a bit in shows (not this one) where a bad guy is just painted as utterly evil. That's why I'd like to know a bit more about Moriarty, I find him fascinating.

[Hikari]

10 hours ago, T.o.b.y said:

I am not entirely convinced but I love the ambiguity: we will never know for sure how much hero and how much sociopath Sherlock really is, how genuine or how disingenuous, how noble or how cunning. For me, this is the real suspense of the show. And I love it. 

I am not even sure whether Irene is all bad. With her, I often wonder how much of a victim she is vs how much of a villain. 

I love this.  Very well stated--that constant dichotomy within the soul of SH.  Our contemporary Sherlock was written purposely to exhibit those sociopathic and/or ASD traits that make  him so entertaining to watch and occasionally a puzzle to figure out.  He is Mofftiss's creation because Sherlock Prime, ACD's version, is, though equally abusive to Watson & leery about romantic attachments to ladies, not likely to be mistaken for a sociopath.  I think the sociopath stuff is a put-on, really, to give Sherlock carte blanche to ignore the conventions of normal social interaction.  We've all wished we could do that, without being sociopaths, but the fear of social disapproval keeps us in line.  Sherlock does not fear social disapproval, or probably even notice it.  How freeing would that be?  As for the rest, he is both noble and cunning, genuine & disingenuous, with moments of heroism mixed with the uncertain child who lives within us all.  Benedict makes all these contradictory impulses very winning . . but owing to the contemporary setting and medium, his Sherlock does not have the inherent dignity and gravitas of ACD's original.  I'm not sure people  have gravitas any more--perhaps it is a quality that has evaporated in our age.

I am content to call BBC Irene mostly bad, which is why it perturbs me that Sherl is interested in her, in whatever  manner passes for his interest.  She's entirely self-serving, and needed no inducement to play Harlequin to Moriarty's Joker.  If al Queda got her and was going to cut her head off . . she was the agent of her own downfall.  I don't see any rehabilitation possible for that woman.  She'll go on her merry way wreaking more havoc since Sherlock rescued her from decapitation.  It's kind of nifty how Moffatt presages Sherlock's MO for TRF with the substitution of the dead woman for Irene's 'body'.  While I don't think she herself killed this person, she was complicit with whoever did (a Moriarty minion, no doubt).

ASiB nevertheless winds up in my first position for the series, despite such an ambiguous Adler. I really urge everyone who hasn't already to read the original 'A Scandal in Bohemia'.  There you will meet a resourceful and admirable woman who fell in love with the wrong man and was betrayed and victimized by him, before seizing matters into her own hands and employing some of Sherlock Holmes's own methods to extricate herself from a bad situation.  ACD's Sherlock Holmes, at all times an honorable man, and a tough nut to impress, saluted her ingenuity and her memory for all time.  Mofftiss has essentially played a game of character assassination with Adler, who was, in her own way, an honorable and clever woman.  BBC Adler isn't that clever really . . she just has powerful allies.  Though she's not bad at a spot of housebreaking and acrobatics.

[Carol the Dabbler]

4 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

She was still in cahoots with Moriarty, wasn't she? So I'd imagine she said to him 'I need to disappear," and he supplied the fake corpse.

I suppose so, yeah, and she didn't know he was going to handle it that way till the deed was already done.  Even being in cahoots with Moriarty strikes me as being of questionable morality, though. She must have had a pretty good idea of his methods.