Hey Harriet,  Thanks!  That works great.

I agree about the disjointed feeling in S3.  During TEH, there were multiple swings.  What really felt off to me in that episode was Sherlock's odd, odd "joking" with the moustache at the start and the bomb at the end.  I'll grant them some leeway - maybe this was an extremely nervous and vulnerable Sherlock that we've never seen before.  Maybe he regressed to an adolescent "giggle to cover your fears" way of being.  (I teach 8th grade, and if I show a video that has emotional resonance, the moment is always ruined by the 13-year-old-boys' giggling.)

The other big one for me is the extreme jump in characterization of Mary from TEH to HLV.  I don't want to want Mary to be written off the show or killed.  I'd love to love her and then, when she inevitably gets written off or killed, mourn her.  But she was charming, delightful, and supportive in TEH and TSoT, and then she was ruthless to the point of shooting the HERO in HLV.  It feels like there was no internal consistency of her characterization, and it feels false and forced. 

So, yes: I want S4 to have a methodical and sensible character arc for everyone: not rushed, not hasty, not forced.  I want John to react the way John Waston As We Know Him should react - and Sherlock, Mycroft, and Mary as well.  I don't care if I like or dislike a character, as long as the way I feel about them is hard-earned and authentic. 

Fillyjonk

lil wrote:

Agree@swan...a modern reflection of society could easily be a single father John with grandma Hudders and Sherlock helping out as the extended family of choice.
Its not exactly canon but before we know it we could easily have a baker st dozen type kids gang being sent out to find strange coloured taxis or boats on occasion.
I don't get the responsable parent John means no dangerous adventures John...policemen. .firemen...soldiers...s.a.s ...mi6 agents...we all have families too..

 
It's true that real-life policemen, firemen, etc. have families.  But real-life folks like aren't routinely targeted and kidnapped because of their jobs.  Alas, we have to live in the canon (fictional) world where anyone close to John or Sherlock is likely to be kidnapped, poisoned, or extorted on a regular basis.  That's fiine when John gets kidnapped (three times!); he can (fictionally) shake off the trauma of that.  But put in an innocent child, and as far as I can tell, neither Sherlock nor John dares to take on Moriarty or Magnussen again.  Look how dangerous their mere affection for each other and Mary has been!

Fillyjonk 
 

Shameless self-promotion below.  I had so much fun making this.  It's pining!Sherlock, because, well... season 3 happened... but perhaps lightens the mood a bit.  And some puzzles to solve.

http://www.archiveofourown/works/1194345

Fillyjonk

Willow wrote:

We talk about Sherlock forgiving Mary; I think we should not overlook the question of whether Mary has forgiven Sherlock...

 
Oh, good point!  Sherlock revealed Mary to John, after she made it clear she did not want Sherlock to do so.  (And she's carrying guns around with her to meetings with Sherlock, so she's pretty ruthless!)

So - has she really forgiven him, or forgotten that Sherlock will do what he needs to do to protect John, regardless of how it affects Mary?  I wouldn't want her to be on my enemies list.

Fillyjonk

Swanpride wrote:

But Mary is not a totally bad person either.

I still think that there would be way less discussions about it if the victim of her "surgery" had been random racist ex-con, or Magnussen himself. It's mostly because it was Sherlock we even think about it so much. It's not that Mary shoot someone...but that she shoot someone whose dead would really hurt John.

 
Well, naturally! 

John killed Jefferson Hope, a complete stranger to us who was likely to kill Sherlock, whom we love, any second.

Sherlock killed Magnussen, a near-stranger to us who had great potential to destroy John Watson, whom we love.

Mary killed SHERLOCK, our protagonist, whom we and John LOVE. 

I have no problem admitting that I'm angrier at Mary than I am at John and Sherlock.  If I were Jefferson Hope's sister, I'd hate John for killing him.  If I were Magnussen's granddaughter, I'd be furious and vengeful and want Sherlock punished deeply.  But those people aren't our heroes, and they're not our connection to this fictional world.  Sherlock is. 

Killing Sherlock or killing John Watson are the two unforgivable sins for guests to the Sherlock universe. 

Sherlock's alleged forgiveness of Mary seems rushed and unbelievable to me, as does John's eventual Christmas reunion with her.  Now, this could be because the producers plan to flesh this story out next season, letting the chickens of Mary's past come home to roost.  Or it could be because the producers wanted Sherlock to sacrifice himself bravely and unselfishly at the end of HLV, and want us to accept Mary, so they've written Sherlock to forgive her (and serve as a role model for us).  I hope it's the former and not the latter, which feels sloppy and illogical to me.

I haven't been formally diagnosed with Asperger's... though it has been implied that I'm on the spectrum-edge of normal.  Whatever.  Seems to me that most geeky fangirls and fanboys could find themselves  labeled as being somewhere on the spectrum.  It also seems that a whole lot of people who are merely introverts (who gain energy during quiet introspection) are lately being labeled with Asperger's, because they don't fit in well with the party crowd (extroverts, who take energy from social engagement).

(I'm a teacher, and had parents come in a few weeks ago to discuss their son's Asperger's.  Kid at 14 seems pretty damned normal to me - he was socially awkward in younger grades, and isn't the life of the party.  But he has friends now, and is never left out of a group.  I wonder if he hasn't been pigeonholed with this label, convinced that rather than having a different personality type, he has a deficit.  Kind of hurts my heart for him.)

Anyway, say I have Asperger's.  Let's embrace the label.  You might have it, too, if you're reading an online forum and doing psychological studies of fictional characters. 

So... the leaving the wedding early?  Ab-so-lutely something I would do.  And have done.  And will do again.  Huge crowd?  Couple hours of cheek-aching small talk and fake smiles?  Everyone is now dancing and drinking and won't even notice when I leave?  Hooray!  I get to go home now, put on my jammies, and curl up with a good book or a marathon viewing session.

I also leave early from large work parties where everyone else still has a couple good hours of drinking and schmoozing in them.  And avoid, unless impossible, tedious events like baby and bridal showers that require long hours of false enthusiasm for onesies and vulgar nightgowns.

I actually do not understand how anyone else truly enjoys events like those.  Honestly, in my heart of hearts, I believe other people are pretending they're having fun, because that's what I'm doing. 

Don't forget that Lestrade had a whole lot of time with Anderson feeding him crazy "Sherlock lives" theories, which I am sure John was spared.  So for Lestrade the seeds were planted, and he was open to the slight possibility that Sherlock faked his death for a reason. 

I think real life emotions aren't one-or-the-other.  John was relieved, shocked, overjoyed, confused, angry, furious - all at the same time.  Hell of a pile of emotions and logic to work out, there.  I dare say it would take me a while to sort it all out.

Fillyjonk

I once vacuumed up my pet gerbil.  He was fat and sassy (and very dirty) inside the vacuum bag when we tore it open.  So I posit that hoovering insects is unlikely to kill them. 

Fillyjonk

It's a great question.  At the end of S3, I'd have to go with "Sherlock."  He is helpless to defend himself now that he recognizes that he cares; he has undone himself.  Willingly.

If we consider Redbeard and are expected to believe that Mycroft is referencing the first (and possibly last?) time Sherlock allowed himself to care deeply, then Sherlock has learned through hard experience that caring is not an advantage.  But he has also seen that it's not a choice he gets to make - he cares for John (evidenced clearly in TGG) and that is a fact of his life now.  It maybe took until the hiatus for him to realize how important John's presence is.

John, meanwhile, seems to never have stopped caring for people; caring for Sherlock is just an extension of his normal, everyday, neuroypical human experience.  Losing Sherlock was incredibly painful, but didn't stop him from falling in love with Mary.  I think John has a broader sense that he has loved in the past and will love in the future.

Sherlock though... I'm not sure he believes he'll ever have another friend if he loses John.  And I think he might be right about that, given his life history.  So, if John is his one true friend, then John must be infinitely precious.  It seems to me that maybe having fewer loves means that the ones Sherlock does have are felt more keenly.


Fillyjonk