ancientsgate wrote:

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

....John might have insisted on going into hiding with Sherlock. But I do think there's a bit of a contradiction between John's being "the bravest, kindest, wisest," etc, and his having a tendency to lash out into violence

Sherlock has that "tendency" as well. He can actually be quite violent, for someone who's supposedly living most of his life inside his head. We've seen him engage in hand to hand combat on numerous occasions. Dump a bad guy out his back window at 221B, down on top of Mrs. H's trash bins, several times. Hold guns on people [even police officers! in the US, that alone would land your ass in prison for quite a while].  As a plot device, I don't see the violence as "lashing out"--  to me, in the story, it's always made to seem jusfified. And then there are no consequences, legal, medical, or otherwise. Total fantasy, all of it.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Sherlock didn't throw Nielson out of the window more than once; it was a joke. I mean really, can you see Sherlock carrying the guy back up the stairs again just so he can chuck him out again? Much too much like hard work 

And yes, Sherlock does engage in hand to hand combat at times; it's in the original stories. This is still not an explanation, much less a justification, for John going apeshit in assorted eating venues in London; there are always consequences of one kind or another. Sherlock is prepared to accept the consequences of killing CAM; he accepts that he has murdered, and is prepared to pay the price with his own life. That's a pretty final consequence, don't you think?
 

I hope even with Mary, that John has seen Sherlock was the vioce of reason for a  change...she was just a client whio needed help, like anybody else.

The bit about "the client" was interesting. Mary didn't like it at all and only yielded because she was desperate about not loosing John. I am sure we will be presented with some clever twist about Mary in the fourth series and it will have to do with Mary's past, in spite of John's declaring it is not his business.

Willow wrote:

ancientsgate wrote:

Willow wrote:

Soldiers control their violence or they don't stay soldiers for very long. John would not have survived the training, much less entered into a successful career, without being in control of his own potential for violence....

Which takes me back to A Study in Pink, when he shot that cabbie dude through the window, to save Sherlock from foolishing taking that poison capsule. Bang, gone, John did the deed. So... yeah, he can control whatever he feels like controlling, but when the occasion arises, he can throw his fists around or use a gun whenever he wants. John's head is screwed on straight, and I can't remember it ever being otherwise.

They don't like doctors punching people in restaurants either; it brings the profession into disrepute. At the very least John would be up for some mandatory counselling because the last thing anyone needs is a doctor incapable of self control. Throwing one punch might be survivable; carrying on physically attacking someone in a series of places puts John in serious trouble, professionally. And whilst we can see that John has been hurt, and sympathise, the writers are also demonstrating that the decision to exclude him from the Moriarty network takedown was exactly right; John's inability to control his impulses would have got a lot of people killed.

I'm an American, so can only speak for American TV dramas, but boy oh boy, stuff happens ALL THE TIME in those shows that would get people arrested and in Big Trouble (caps intended) in real life. Sheesh, you can't go around knocking people down and punching their teeth in (and worse) and just get away scot free. And even aside from the legal ramifications, my god, you can kill someone smashing their nose in with your head like that. In an example from real life, just a few months ago, two local area men got into a bar fight, they both went home (drunk as skunks, of course), and a few hours later one of them was dead from his injuries. And now the survivor is probably going to spend 15+ years in prison.  My point being, we see stuff on episodic TV all the time that's a) not based in reality and b) has no legal or medical consequences and c) results in no outward injury that lasts longer than to get us to the next scene-- no black eyes, bruises, broken bones, etc.

I think John absolutely could have kept his mouth shut, if he'd been brought into the plan of Sherlock's leap and disappearance. I haven't seen any evidence in the show that he goes off half-cocked and does irrational things, or that he likes to go have a couple of pints and start blabbing things around. ??? In fact, John's the one who keeps Sherlock based in reality most of the time, trying to get Sherlock to live in the real world a bit better.

I can absolutely understand how John was highly insulted at the implication that he was untrustworthy about keeping a secret. Good lord! Since when was he so unreliable? He was plenty reliable for the posh Mr. Holmes for years before TRF.

All of that stuff is a plot device, some of it played for pathos, some for humor, but not one iota based in reality, not a bit of it. 40-something physicians and decorated war veterans wouldn't have acted so childish. But....  it's a TV show, so there ya go.

I do feel that Mofftiss are trying for something rather better than a bog standard US crime drama; they really don't want their show to remind you of bog standard US crime drama, and to the extent that you believe it does then they have failed. I do appreciate that the role of violence in the US culture is at a much higher level, but in England, and Sherlock is intended to be quintessentially English, there is far less violence. When it comes to violence we are, in fact, rather proud of the fact that we are not Americans, and Mofftiss are very well aware of it. And the 'it's only tv' argument is a cop out; if we go down that route why discuss it at all?

2. May I suggest that you watch TRF again? John goes haring off across London, summoned to the bedside of the supposedly dying Mrs Hudson, pausing only to call Sherlock every name under the sun for his callous refusal to accompany him. Yet John knew perfectly well that Sherlock was deeply attached to Mrs Hudson, and had done some pretty unpleasant things to the guy who had tortured her in SiB. Had he bothered to engage his brain for a nanosecond he must have known that he was behaving like an idiot, but he didn't. That was about as half-cocked and as irrational as you can get, and it was right in the middle of a crisis; I appreciate that you want to believe that John can control himself if he wishes, but John clearly didn't do so when he really needed to. As I keep saying, John has many fine qualities but it is incredibly easy to push his buttons; John is not good at keeping secrets, and a lot more lives than his alone were at stake.

Also, on a purely personal level, I dislike people who flounce, and John does epic flounces; I'm living in hope that he'll grow out of it.
 

YEP.

I think he does reel.

I have always had those feelings and honestly wondered why John never considered Sherlock could possibly be alive...
He possibly didn't dare to hope for it.

But Irene had been seen dead on the slab...

I know, thick as...

besleybean wrote:

But Irene had been seen dead on the slab...

Yes but with a 'bashed up' face. So the body matched not the face. Irene knew Sherlock could pick her from her measurements.

That was kind of my thinking...it's  not like John  had never heard of a fake death and Sherlock told him it was a magic trick...