Let's hope Mark and Steven are listening to you!

No, I don't want to go back to how it was. Relationships need to move forwards, not backwards. And I actually liked the fact that the dynamics changed, a third season of just the same would make people feel that it had lost its edge. I don't really see why everyone wants it back the way it was, wouldn't that be... boring?

Something I really like about their relationship is the effect that it has on Sherlock; he gets the opportunity to catch up on some much needed socialisation. Mary actually contributes to that and provides a different angle, thus far I found her addition a pro. 

But I agree that I also have had enough of the John angst. I actually believe that he's the hardest character to write. The anger in HLV was a bit over the top for me, I mean honestly, if your best friend started using heroin wouldn't you just be concerned rather than angry? No, he decides to shout at him while he is high, not intelligent by any stretch of the imagination. Sure it's a really funny scene with snappy dialogue and all but if you think about it it doesn't make too much sense. 

I don´t know - to me it seems normal. Most of people I know would certainly shout in anger if they found out that their close friends are taking drugs.

silverblaze wrote:

And that wouldn't do the close friends any good, probably. But if you place yourself in John's shoes, you have a best friend like Sherlock, you get married, you go on holiday and settle in your new life and then discover he is back to using. Wouldn't you see that as a sign of distress? Maybe Sherlock is so tough and stubborn that he would benefit from being shouted at and the soft approach wouldn't do anything to him, but that should be a calculated decision, not an emotional one. And surely you'd wait until he was sober before you start the fight. Mycroft's 'strict parent' behaviour makes much more sense than John's. Not sure whether it would work, but at least he gives the impression that he roughly knows what he's doing. 

Just in general I found John's emotions way too overblown. If I had a friend that faked his suicide, I would be really angry and shout. I would maybe think of breaking his nose, but I wouldn't actually do it. That person would not be my friend thereafter, though. 

So, yeah, less John related drama. MF really shines with the subtle acting anyway, let him do that. 

Truth to be told - not John nor Molly or Mycroft should treat Sherlock the way they do because they stand too close to him and thus lack objectivity and proffesional distance which are needed in such situation.

Still, comparing those three, I find John´s reaction most benign. He only reproaches Sherlock that he didn´t contact him when he was feeling down but started his drug habit anew. He´s trying to appeal to Sherlock´s sense of friendship. Even if he´s shouting I don´t see him doing much harm.

Molly, who actually slaps Sherlock, chose a very bad way how to bring him to reason. I don´t think such method would persuade him.

Similarly, Mycroft´s sneering, emotional blackmail (bringing mother and father into the problem) and leading a horde of strangers through Sherlock´s flat doesn´t seem like a wise solution to me. If I was Sherlock, I would take a new batch of a drug just to appear defiant in his eyes. A hamfisted method of dealing with an addict, if you ask me.

I find all three reactions believable and in character for people scared about their close friend relapsing. That doesn´t mean their reactions are wise or proffesionally appropriate for dealing with Sherlock at that moment.
  

It could also reflect that John still had a bit of a hero complex about Sherlock!

silverblaze wrote:

......Just in general I found John's emotions way too overblown. If I had a friend that faked his suicide, I would be really angry and shout. I would maybe think of breaking his nose, but I wouldn't actually do it.....

But you're (presumably) not a guy. Guys solve their problems with their fists, pushing each other around, etc. Women use their words, (some) men use their fists.

Interestingly, right before John found out that Sherlock was alive, he had that scene with Mrs. H at her kitchen table, "One phone call. All you needed to do was call me, let me know you were okay. One little phone call, would that have been so hard?" (I'm paraphrasing Mrs. H's words, but you get what I mean, right?)  John and Sherlock, neither one of them are aces at communication.
 

nakahara wrote:

Truth to be told - not John nor Molly or Mycroft should treat Sherlock the way they do because they stand too close to him and thus lack objectivity and proffesional distance which are needed in such situation.

I don't think anyone could be expected to maintain a professional distance from one's own brother, one's best friend, and a friend/colleague who was trusted enough to help save your life and that of your 3 best friends in the world. Sherlock has stepped waaaaay over any professional boundaries with John and Molly. And Mycroft is always "blood" first and anything else way later.

Still, comparing those three, I find John´s reaction most benign. He only reproaches Sherlock that he didn´t contact him when he was feeling down but started his drug habit anew. He´s trying to appeal to Sherlock´s sense of friendship. Even if he´s shouting I don´t see him doing much harm.

Imagine having a friend and colleague like Sherlock, who goes way beyond "marching to the beat of a different drummer", over into a Weird Zone where no one else can come along. I feel for John-- Sherlock cannot be controlled by anyone until he feels like being controlled, and even then, he can be not-so-nice about it, to say the least. Having him for a friend is a challenge on many levels.

Molly, who actually slaps Sherlock, chose a very bad way how to bring him to reason. I don´t think such method would persuade him.

Yes, that slap was really strange. In the US, she could be arrested for such behavior, since that's simple assault. Whether or not Sherlock uses drugs and endangers his precious life in a crack house could be construed as being her business, since after all, she is his friend and went out on a huge limb to orchestrate TRF cover-up, but....  we all have to allow our adult friends to be just that-- adults-- and make their own decisions. We can't go around hitting each other.  Which I realize could also be said of John, but I do think (right or wrong) it's different between two guys, especially two guys whose relationship is fraught with UST (unresolved sexual tension).

Similarly, Mycroft´s sneering, emotional blackmail (bringing mother and father into the problem) and leading a horde of strangers through Sherlock´s flat doesn´t seem like a wise solution to me. If I was Sherlock, I would take a new batch of a drug just to appear defiant in his eyes. A hamfisted method of dealing with an addict, if you ask me.

Right. Not based on reality, like almost everything else in the show.

ancientsgate wrote:

 Right. Not based on reality, like almost everything else in the show.

That's true and interesting, as we're here to overthink everything about it hopelessly, you have a point. There's human behaviour in drama that isn't actually too realistic, but people accept it because it's drama, and it's more seen as something symbolic. Molly's slap would be a good example. The woman slaps man thing seems to be a bit of a trope, but IRL it's either dangerous or very unfair. I don't think I've ever seen it happen. To what extend you suspend disbelief and say 'well, it's just drama, we know what they mean', really depends on the individual. 
 

silverblaze wrote:

....To what extend you suspend disbelief and say 'well, it's just drama, we know what they mean', really depends on the individual. 

Right. It's called hand-waving. Some don't mind hand-waving, others end up not enjoying unrealistic drama because of the excessive hand-waving required. Defniitely an individual's take on it.
 

Suspension of disbelief is not really something you can steer, at some point you might just go 'nah, no way'. For some reason I always keep in mind that a piece of fiction has a writer, and I think about what he or she must mean or tries to tell us with it. It's never actually as 'real' for me as it must be for some others on the forum, just judging by people's responses. 

Sherlock is the only show I analyse to death. So things that I normally don't notice get magnified. Also, I was projecting, like, a lot. I most probably suffer from a mood disorder and doing what John did to Sherlock would have been the worst reaction ever to me. So I had more of a reaction that I otherwise would have had, as I said, it depends on the individual.

For analysing to death this is really the right place, is it not?  I still smile when I think about the thread with a few scientists calculating the survival rates of liver injuries, complete with articles and recalculated statistics (still couldn't solve it because there was a confound in the data gathering method, though). I just thought to myself, Moffat is an English major, wouldn't know a p-value from a covariate, why should he, he did not take this into account. Overthinking, it's what we do. 

But what was this about? Mary's death. Eh, yeah.