Okay-- here's a very weird take on this: Suppose John sees Sherlock as the "psychopath" because, in reality--*he's* the one worried about those characteristics in his own personailty? 

Superficial charm? John is actually a master of it, though he doesn't actually care much more than Sherlock does. Keep in mind he didn't speak to Mrs. Hudson for TWO YEARS. He only dropped by to tell her about his marriage ("I'm NOT GAY!"). He knows how he's supposed to act, how he's supposed to feel-- and he's good at acting that out-- but he can't keep his girlfreinds straight, he has no problem enabling his wife to live a lie, he's adept at hiding his own feelings from himself-- he carries an illegal firearm, giggles at crime scenes, has no problem shooting an unarmed man to death and then joking about it, gets off on spraining Billy Wiggins, has a tendency to explode in violence. 

Something else-- John's hurt, his pain at The Fall, his rage and betrayal about Mary-- it's about him, his sense of being duped. He felt made a fool of by Sherlock, that's why he beat the holy heck out of him. He didn't seem to be that upset that Mary shot Sherlock, just that she wasn't what he thought she was-- and in some ways, she was to be a cover to aid him in presenting a "normal", "sane" life. I don't even think it's conscious. Which is why, "WHY IS EVERYTHING ALWAYS--MY--FAULT???" 

"Because you chose her."

So maybe John needs to see Sherlock as The Psychopath, because it helps him not have to own up to his own dysfunctional personality. 

Another thought: Sherlock does read John's blog. If you had a "Colleague!" who spoke about you on his blog the way John does of Sherlock, would YOU think that your death, even a suicide would damage that freind as much as we go on about Sherlock's Fall "breaking" John? Wouldn't you be suprised if that same person called you their "best freind"?

I'll be honest; I doubt very much that either John or Sherlock are psychopaths, or even Sociopaths-- Moffitss' has been clear about that as regards Sherlock. I think Sherlock is simply protecting himself, because he's over-sensitive. All those off-the-cuff comments hurt. Think about how everything that has ever hurt him was waiting in his mindpalace to torment him when he was on the brink of death in HLV. 

Another thought: If John never acknowledges that Sherlock is human, that he has feelings that can be easily hurt-- he doesn't ever have to look at his own feelings for the man. If you have a character how is.. okay, I'll just say it, homophobic (as terrified of the stigma) he may have very rigid ideas of what constitutes an appropriate relationship between men; which is why he cleaves so tightly to the signifiers, "mates", "blokes", "colleagues". And now--"best freinds." 

Sherlock is not a sociopath. 

John isn't, either-- though he may be worried about it. 

Moriarty is, and Mary most likely is, as well. 

@RavenMorganLeigh Your make some good points.
 

tykobrian wrote:

@RavenMorganLeigh Your make some good points.
 

Thank you! (blushing)

Lots of questions! Bear with me ... (don't worry, I love answering questions)

tykobrian wrote:

Well as for me I have to stick to my old theory because the awful way John writes about Sherlock in his blog ever in season 3 is proof to me that he is twisting the facts. I mean, in his blog entry in TEH:

... At first, I didn't really welcome him back into my life. I couldn't. I mean I know he's a psychopath and I've accepted that but what he did this time, it was too much. So I ignored him and got on with my life. But God, it was dull ...

And in HLV...

"Is everyone I've ever met a psychopath??" (read: Oh God I've fallen for another psycho!!) Where does that line come from anyway? Why does he have to drag Sherlock in this discussion? And why compare a murderer like Mary with Sherlock unless he thinks of him the same?

For me there is too many overwhelming evidence that John is warping the truth and overlooking the obvious.

Well, I'm not really disagreeing with you there.  I think it could well be the way you say it is.  But it shows a very unpleasant side of John, and it would take quite a bit of effort on John's part to make himself believe that.   That doesn't sit comfortably with me. 

I think the way John uses "psychopath" above is just a colloquial use rather than a medical/legal/"official" use.  The way people might use it to describe somebody possibly dangerous, as an insult.  Apart from Mary's previous profession and the fact that she lied about it, there's no evidence that she's a psychopath.  Even then, she's in a similar position to somebody in a witness protection programme.  One big lie for self-protection is not the same thing as pathological lying. 

EDIT: And speaking of "ticking boxes" what things in  do you think would've helped John to realize the truth by going through the mental health checklist? And how would you think he'd explain away all the iconic psychopathic traits (Superficial charm, Grandiose sense of self-worth and arrogance, Need for stimulation/ proneness to boredom, Disregard for social norms and rules, Adept ability to lie and manipulate, Lack of empathy for others)  Sherlock seems to possess which I mentioned in my earlier posts? Sherlock doesn't seem to have only few but all the hallmark traits of a psychopath. Do you really think he'd be assured with the news that some people have psychopathic traits and are actually not psychopaths? But like in case of Sherlock if anyone does posses all the traits of a psychopath then s/he is diagnosed a psychopath. That's the basic premise of the model. And speaking of psychopathy I'd argue that John's angst is actually because of the traits that in his mind Sherlock clearly posseses. Like how he does not feel things, how he does not care about people or how he left John to mourn in vain those two years and how he made a joke out of it. And I don't think any checklist or diagnosis can make him forget these pain. And even if sherlock does not diagnose as a psycho he's still a heartless bastard in the eyes of John as evidenced by his blog and the show. And when he calls him a psycho that's what he actually means. John's romantic feelings just added another level of pain and angst to the mix.

I think the main thing that would have alerted John is that it's impossible to give Sherlock a psychopath's score on the checklist (I googled it).  Being arrogant doesn't make you a psychopath.  Lying doesn't make you a psychopath.  Etc.  Average non-criminals score 5 (so the average person does have some psychopathic traits). Non-psychopathic criminals score around 22.  Psychopaths score 30 - 40.  When I tried scoring Sherlock as I saw him he scored maybe 3.  I tried to bump it up (as John might do) and could maybe get it an 8, possibly slightly more.  So yes, I think John would be reassured if he went through it.  Sherlock clearly fails the psychopath test . 

On top of that, John sees a lot of very non-psychopathic qualities in Sherlock.  He can be humble, caring, etc.  Joking at the reunion - well, John jokes about serious things too (impossible to be such a dick all the time, the other is a complete dickhead, etc. - can't remember the exact quotes, but that's how he shows his feelings for Sherlock).  That's what they do.  At the takeaway, Sherlock says how much he wanted to get in touch with John, with a catch in his voice and emotion clearly showing in his face.  I agree that John sees less than we do, but he still can see the "real" Sherlock.  Again, not disagreeing that John might make himself think badly of Sherlock, but saying that he has evidence to the contrary.  

Anyways, since you mentioned that John will have to tick some himself which one do you think would they be? I could hardly select two out of the six.

He would definitely get a 2 in need for stimulation.   He could arguably have a 1 in impulsivity, poor behaviour controls, and possibly a couple of others.  So not much different to Sherlock.  He is the more violent one after all. 

And most importantly if John is really consciously assured of Sherlock's sanity why does he say and writes that he's a psycho? I'm just trying to figure out that why you don't think much of the practically awful things John accuses of Sherlock and what do you think are his reasons.

As above, I think he's using the word colloquially.  I don't think he actually believes Sherlock is literally a psychopath.  That doesn't mean that he still doesn't put him down - I agree with you there that it sometimes seems like he deliberately ignores his good qualities and tries to think the worst.  But at other times, he seems to have such faith in him.

And why are you directly disregarding the things Moffar said specifically about Sherlock's sociopathy being an intentional misunderstanding in favor of his remark on The Princess Bride which actually was not used to allude to Sherlock's sociopathy?

I'm not sure what you mean.  I think it's clear that Sherlock isn't written as a sociopath and that he lies about it - I have no argument with that.  I was picking up on what I thought you were suggesting - that Moffat used the word "sociopath" because it was well known that it had been used about ACD's Holmes.   Even though it's not a word that would be used as a diagnosis nowadays, I thought I could see why Moffat would pick it if it was a word that people would know was commonly applied to Sherlock Holmes.  I just thought it was funny that it reminded me of that line from The Princess Bride.  If you haven't seen it, one of the characters repeatedly uses the word "inconceivable" incorrectly,   Sherlock repeatedly uses "sociopath" incorrectly (or so it seemed to me.  It was my belief that nowadays somebody would be diagnosed with a personality disorder rather than sociopathy).  Makes me want to quote "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means"!   I thought it was funny that the quote was from a film Moffat cited as a favourite.  OK, it's not so funny once I write it all out.

Last edited by Liberty (August 18, 2014 7:28 pm)

I agree that John tends to be very self-centred.  It's all about him, a lot of the time.

And I agree that John is uncomfortable with showing love and affection to Sherlock (hence the jokes), but I don't think he's at all homophobic!  I don't see any evidence for that in the show. 
 

Last edited by Liberty (August 18, 2014 7:34 pm)

It's possible, but I don't really see it there in the show.  He doesn't get riled by people suggesting he and Sherlock are lovers. for instance, beyond getting irritated at the continual misunderstanding.   He has a lot of issues, but I don't think that's one of them. 

It does get irritating if people keep on insisting on something that isn't true!  It seems to be a running joke, a bit like Sherlock always getting Greg's name wrong.  I don't think it means John is homophobic (I know what you mean by homophobia there).  It doesn't look like it's touching a nerve. 

I've wondered about that a lot!  And you know, John rarely asks. As we've talked about it, he seems to avoid knowing. 

In The Empty House, Sherlock says that he couldn't contact John in case his "affectionate regard" for him led to him giving away the secret.  He says something similar in TEH.  So I think that's one reason - that John is impulsive and emotional and would find it very difficult not to to give things away.   It bothered me that Sherlock was so secretive throughout the first two series, but now it seems to make sense.  Sherlock is very good at acting and at not giving things away (well, except that he does that "not giving things away" face!), and John just isn't.  

And maybe when Sherlock actually does tell John what's going on, it backfires.  At the beginning of TRF, Sherlock doesn't tell John why he's courting publicity.  However, at the beginning of HLV he tells John right from the beginning that he's on a case, only to have John and Molly not believe him! 

(I think there's also the fact that, just speaking us a viewer, I like the "show, don't tell" approach, where we see what Sherlock does and have to work it out, rather than having John explain it to us (as in the books).   I suppose they could have got round that by having Sherlock explain things off-screen?  But I do actually like watching it this way and I'm glad they took this approach, which relies on John being in the dark).

I think the secrecy is most noticeable in Season 2, but it's there right from the first episode, which makes me think that it's just the way Sherlock naturally works, and possibly even that John rather likes the mystery.  Sometimes I think it's just that Sherlock doesn't see a reason to tell John. 

Would things be better if Sherlock explained?  I don't know.   I rather liked that instead, what happened was that John built up this solid, unwavering trust in Sherlock by the end of Series 2.  I liked that Sherlock didn't have to explain himself.  I was really frustrated that John wouldn't let Sherlock explain himself in Series 3, but liked that they were working back to that familiar trust. 

Your examples:
>Sherlock being strangled - I actually think he's slightly embarassed there.  It was because he was too slow on the uptake that he got into trouble. 
>Lazarus - there's the explanation above, but also, Sherlock keeps all three out of the loop.   It looks as if they are still at risk until Moriarty's network is destroyed.  Sherlock makes it clear that he desparately wanted to contact John.  (The Serbian torture being so close to John hitting Sherlock bothers me too, but I'm not sure how he could have got that across, and I don't think he wanted to.   I think Sherlock feels at fault in those scenes).
>Janine seems more attracted to Sherlock than he is to her (when John sees them together).  I don't think John would think Sherlock used her for sex. I don't think he'd fall for the tabloid stories either, especially as it's obvious what Janine has to gain from them.

Another thing is that I don't know if John really knows for sure (he could work it out, but we don't see him doing that), that Sherlock's exile was to protect him.   I'd like him to know that.   It's rather frustrating in TSOT when Sherlock talks about John saving him, when actually, he has saved John in more ways than one. 

To be a bit more on topic, it's that trust that John has for Sherlock that makes me think he can't really believe he's a psychopath.  He believes in Sherlock through TRF and afterwards, even when the evidence seems to be building up against him.

Last edited by Liberty (August 19, 2014 6:58 am)

Yes, that's true.  And I suppose it means that he doesn't really know him.   Or only knows what matters.   He says he's the best and wisest man he knows, but it seems to be gut feeling rather than an assessment.  Which is fine. 

It does look as if often Sherlock is protecting John and John doesn't know it. 

ASiB has always bothered me, because John seems so concerned about Sherlock throughout the episode, but Sherlock refuses to give anything away.   John is trying to protect Sherlock at various points, but completely without information on what Sherlock really feels.  He does seem to believe Sherlock can be hurt.  But he's not sure if Sherlock is being hurt or not.  There's that scene with Irene at Battersea Power Station, where he tells her that he doesn't know if Sherlock is heartbroken or just his normal self.  And at the end when John is trying to judge which story to tell Sherlock, which will cause him the least pain ... and Sherlock appears to be devastated but hiding it, while he knows Irene is alive and well. 

I think Sherlock often does hide things to protect people (in this case, Irene, but often John), but it's frustrating that it means there are parts of Sherlock that John doesn't get to come close to (no double entendre intended!).