Episode 2.1, "A Scandal In Belgravia"

[Carol the Dabbler]

Going back to "The Great Game" another thing that has me wondering if he felt something at the death of the blind woman is the way he reacted, slowly putting the phone down and slumping back into the chair and that kind of blank look that comes over his face.

Yes, and John immediately knew what had happened, just from seeing Sherlock's reaction.

 

On the other hand, it could have been bewilderment -- I figured it out -- I won -- so how come things didn't turn out properly?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I figured it out -- I won -- so how come things didn't turn out properly?

A very good observation on your part and also maybe he was wondering....what was different about this one.....why would he have risked speaking her to her directly...he had never done it before....what did he want me to know?

 

Moriarty must have known that this woman would try to describe him if she thought it would help her. So, if he wanted her to die.....was it to let Sherlock know that it was no longer a "game"? He wanted Sherlock to know that people could and would actually die, the "rules", if there were any, be damed? And did Sherlock care enough to do something about it?

 

The Bruce-Partington Plans were of national security and yet Sherlock was willing to make them a "gift" to Moriarty. Was it to put an end to "the great game" some how? What Sherlock thought was going to happen at the pool, we will never know. But was he already showing that he was willing and capable of sacrificing himself for others? To stop the killings? He did go armed.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sherlock does comment (about Moriarty and the blind woman), "Just once, he put himself in the firing line." So realizes this case was different in that Moriarty had apparently spoken directly to the woman (as he apparently did later to John). "Why" is a really good question, isn't it? I like your idea, that perhaps Moriarty actually WANTED this case to go wrong, so Sherlock would realize that it wasn't just a game, so Moriarty could find out whether that would make any difference to Sherlock.

 

I think it's debatable whether Sherlock really gave the missile plans to Moriarty. He had told John earlier that he'd already given them to Mycroft. Of course he could have made a copy first. Or he could have given Moriarty any random flash drive. Or he (possibly in conjunction with Mycroft) could have made some fake-but-believable missile plans.

 

Good question, what did Sherlock expect to happen at the pool. I suspect he was hoping that the (real or fake) missile plans would satisfy Moriarty, though I assume he considered that to be a long shot, and his main purpose in going to the pool was to try and figure out what was really going on. And I assume he went armed simply because he was meeting a man with a nasty habit of blowing people up.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yes, I too believe that what ever was on the memory stick was doctored in some way in case Moriarty did choose to accept it.

 

And I assume he went armed simply because he was meeting a man with a nasty habit of blowing people up.

No doubt of that what so ever, in my mind. But where did he get the gun,(was it John's?) and being a man who fought mostly through his intellect with some physical prowess, like running them to ground, the gun seems a out of character....was he actually planning to use it. He had the grit for it, without a doubt, but then what. He must have known that if Moriarty showed up at the meeting, it would be very likely he would not be alone. Which also echoes the actions of what might have been their very last meeting when it was Moriarty that brought the fire arm to the roof. Interesting......

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yes, I'm assuming that he had "borrowed" John's gun (as he also apparently did for his attempt at interior decoration). His attitude toward John's gun seems to be similar to his attitude toward John's computer. Come to think of it, John is actually very lucky to be shorter than Sherlock -- otherwise Sherlock would be wearing John's clothing whenever he didn't want to get his own things dirty.

 

Which raises the question, does Sherlock actually lack a concept of personal property -- or is it just that his concept only works in one direction? How does he react when John uses his things without asking? (Pointless question, I suppose -- since I'm trying to think of a time when John used anything of Sherlock's, and coming up empty.) My best guess is that he considers "personal property" to be less important than "logic" -- and that he tends to define "logical" as "convenient."

 

But back to your final question -- you're right, he doesn't normally rely on a gun. But then again, he's never before come (knowingly) face to face with a criminal mastermind. Hmm, right, he could very well have anticipated being outnumbered. He may even have envisioned something like what almost happened.

 

Or dare I say -- because it was in the script?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Or dare I say -- because it was in the script?

Absolutely, Which, I suppose, makes this whole exercise rather moot but fun none the less and I thank you for it.

 

Not sure he would borrow John's clothing...at least not all those jumpers, he didn't seem to like them much any way. John has a little more weight on him....sssoooo.....would they fit him loosely? Sherlock's spectrum issues is what makes him like tight clothing..... works on the same principle as those thunder coats for cats and dogs. Plus he would tend to wear soft silks and wools. Most linen's and cotton's would appear to be abrasive and chaffing to his skin.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I doubt that John's clothing would be too big around for Sherlock, since a tall thin man could be about the same circumference as a shorter medium-weight man, but I do agree that in general Sherlock's taste in clothing is more -- umm -- elegant? Thanks for the insight as to why he prefers really snug clothing, and nothing with much texture to it. (Maybe it's just as well that I prefer John's taste in clothing.)

 

I was thinking, though, that if Sherlock was planning to paint the living room, say, or wade through brambles, he might not want to mess up his nice things, and I certainly wouldn't put it past him to "borrow" John's clothing -- if only it fit him.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

In the Unaired Pilot he did wear jeans.....did he still wear button down shirts? Can't remember. But if they had been washed many times the jeans might be soft enough and even that early on they had a handle on the tightness of Sherlock's clothes.

 

and I certainly wouldn't put it past him to "borrow" John's clothing -- if only it fit him.

There are no end of fanfiction pieces where Sherlock "borrow" John's jumpers if only to destroy them in experiments, but I do see your point. Sherlock has no problem using John's things. It may be one of those situations where Sherlock considers everything in 221b his own property?

 

I can also see him taking something of John's if he was going to paint or something like that. But then there would be the issue of the strong odors. It have to be a very low impact formula, hardly any chemical smell at all.

[Carol the Dabbler]

In the Unaired Pilot he did wear jeans ... and even that early on they had a handle on the tightness of Sherlock's clothes.

Has it always been intentional? I believe that some of the commentaries mention that his shirts were so button-busting tight because Benedict Cumberbatch was bulking up for his next role. But even if so, it worked out appropriately for the character!

 

 

There are no end of fanfiction pieces where Sherlock "borrow" John's jumpers if only to destroy them in experiments

Heck, why not borrow John's jumpers for experiments? He has no compunctions about borrowing John!

 

 

It may be one of those situations where Sherlock considers everything in 221b his own property?

Something like that, I think.

 

I once had a boss with a similar attitude. One of my co-workers had a nice calculator, and when the boss wanted to use it, he would ask my co-worker, "Where's the calculator?" -- rather than "May I borrow your calculator?"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I have read articles using Sherlock as a test subject that had him diagnosed as having Narcissistic Disorder and that would account for his having no borders when it came to claiming use of John's things. He may have been narcissistic, I agree. But not as a psychological disorder more that he had always been such a loner and emotionally abandoned he had just never learned these bounderies. John is teaching him in spades, when he is around to do so.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Perhaps my boss could have been diagnosed with Narcissistic Disorder -- though that might be just a fancy way of saying that he was not terribly empathetic.

 

I agree that in Sherlock's case, it hardly seems necessary to pin any such diagnosis on him. He's just never had any experience taking other people into account. Good thing he met John!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Good thing he met John!

I agree so whole heartedly. Even in the canon the scholars credit Dr. Watson with being a real rock. I find in the original stories he may have been a bit of enabler then Dr. John H. Watson of the 21 century. In the stories Watson went right along with Holmes if he wanted to break and enter carry the gun and every thing. John will kill to protect Sherlock but he will also yell at him if he thinks Sherlock is pushing the envelope to much. Of course these where two different eras...not sure how much of a difference that makes though.

 

 

....he has no compunction on borrowing John....

ROFLAO! Some times those are over the top....but anyway.....I can't see Sherlock wanting to burn him in an experiment.

[Carol the Dabbler]

In the stories Watson went right along with Holmes .... John will kill to protect Sherlock but he will also yell at him if he thinks Sherlock is pushing the envelope to much. Of course these where two different eras...not sure how much of a difference that makes though.

I think the sensibilities have changed. But there's one other difference between the canon and Sherlock, which may also help to account for John's greater expression of his own opinions. The canon Watson was the narrator, so his primary function really was as "a transmitter of light," rather than as an active character in his own right. In Sherlock, even though John is our representative in the sense that he enables us to relate to the bizarre goings-on, he is free to play a much broader role, because we can see everything for ourselves. So where was I headed with all this verbiage? Right, so that's why I think John can exhibit more of a mind of his own than the canon Watson did.

 

 

I can't see Sherlock wanting to burn him in an experiment.

Well, he wouldn't want to ruin his favorite lab rat, now would he? (Maybe just singe him a little bit, though, in the name of science.)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

he is free to play a much broader role, because we can see everything for ourselves.

True, books are less visual unless you have a really good imagination and our 21st century Dr. John is less of a narrator so I do think you have a point there. Also audiences want action and lots of it. To much moralizing and the audience is going to drop off. And our Sherlock can be such a child that people thinks its "just adorable" to have John yelling at the pouting consulting detective.

 

(Maybe just singe him a little bit, though, in the name of science.)

Yes, with Sherlock....anything might be done in the "name of science" indeed.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... our Sherlock can be such a child that people thinks its "just adorable" to have John yelling at the pouting consulting detective.

The "a-word" seems to be a bit overused, but yeah. Cathartic, really, seeing as how I can't actually slap him upside the head myself.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yup, some times missing what is obvious to us lesser beings because he is looking at something above or beyond what we consider important...such as the name of a deceased child because it was used to open her phone. I mean really. She must have loved the child very much to have kept the name so close to her emotionally. The phone was very important. It saved the lives of others.....the child lives on and Sherlock didn't get it. Kind of sad really.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sad from our point of view. I doubt that Sherlock would think of it that way. After all, he was able to see that "Rachel" was the pink lady's password, whereas everyone else was able to see it as sentiment (to use Sherlock's word), and willing to leave it at that.

 

It's kind of a trade-off, though I doubt that anyone is capable of using either complete logic or complete "sentiment." As we've noted, even Sherlock has feelings, and even we ordinary mortals are capable of logical thinking. Each of us is somewhere along that spectrum by nature, with a certain amount of leeway to choose one direction or the other.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Each of us is somewhere along that spectrum by nature,

Absolutely. And Sherlock did ask John if "caring would help keep people safe" and when John conceded that it would not it was then "Then I will continue not to make that mistake."

 

It does have to be a delicate balance. Feel yes, but don't let it over take and rule the mind. Be able to compartmentalize and put it aside and be able to get on with the job.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right. And come to think of it, I assume that John understands that sort of compartmentalization very well. In Afghanistan, he must have had to pull the sheet over a number of his buddies, but then immediately move on and give the next patient his full attention. In fact, I suspect that any doctor needs to maintain a certain emotional distance, being sympathetic but not really empathetic with patients.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

John would, I suspect being the better then most doctor that he was. But the length and depth that Sherlock could go in his ability to compartmentalize, namely...his Mind Palace could both amaze and tick him off.

[Caya]

Idly wandering the web this morning, I discovered that there apparently is a Sherlockian community on pinterest as well (shouldn't come as a surprise, really). Haven't really dug in yet but already found this picture, and whoever created it (it leads to a dead tumblr link) made an excellent point, imho:

 

 

(No, I don't have a flickr account yet. Yes, I will make one soon, promise)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

That has been posted on Facebook on a Sherlock Holmes fan page. How appropo that is. Well done who ever put it together.

[Roseann1to3]

One of the scenes that we loved was when Sherlock was  on the phone describing the injuries injuries he was PLANNING to in f lift on Mrs. Hudson's attacker. So funny!

[besleybean]

This episode was really where I had to eat my words.

After S1, I strongly defended Sherlock against charges of being violent...

This sequence is hilarious, but obviously ONLY acceptable on TV.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

He could be violent in canon as well, but it was usually very understated. Sherlock Holmes once threatened to kill someone for wounding Dr. Watson. There might be other examples as well, just not pulling anything deffinate up at the moment.