BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Season 3 difference in POV; Sherlock VS John, not a machine, after all

RavenMorganLeigh · February 10, 2014 10:20 pm

Willow wrote:
Tinks wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
The thing is-- do we think that Sherlock's more emotional, because we are seeing things from his POV? Because when we got everything through the John filter, Sherlock was basically a mean Vulcan. :-)

I think when it was shown from John's side, there were many times when we could still see things in Sherlock that he couldn't.
There were many times when John took Sherlock at face value but, by a look in his eyes or an urgency in his actions, Sherlock showed that a lot of his emotionless front is an act, a coat of armour.

Yes, I agree that John is not a good observer, and to a certain extent he actively avoids looking; I'm not sure how much of this is consciously intentional on his part, or whether he simply isn't good at it. It is a bit odd because doctors are trained to become good observers; obviously some are better than others but it's a skill which can be learned, and has to be developed, if they are going to be any good as doctors.

I don't think it's conscious at all-- I think it may be a way of categorizing people-- and once he does it, he becomes rather rigid about his view of a person. But I think it gets in the way of him really *seeing* people for who they are, sometimes. Look at how he views Sherlock, Mary, and Mycroft. He seems to have rather one-dimensional ideas of who they are, and is totally blown away when the facts don't match up to his perceptions. He sees, but does not observe... and that's another reason why Sherlock taking John along on his quest to dismantle Moriarty's crime empire would have probably gotten them both killed. And telling John, who doesn't judge people all that well-- he really could have let something slip to a person he mistakenly trusted, and gotten Sherlock killed.

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (February 10, 2014 10:24 pm)

RavenMorganLeigh · February 10, 2014 10:27 pm

Tinks wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
The thing is-- do we think that Sherlock's more emotional, because we are seeing things from his POV? Because when we got everything through the John filter, Sherlock was basically a mean Vulcan. :-)

I think when it was shown from John's side, there were many times when we could still see things in Sherlock that he couldn't.
There were many times when John took Sherlock at face value but, by a look in his eyes or an urgency in his actions, Sherlock showed that a lot of his emotionless front is an act, a coat of armour.

Yet, he was very willing to believe that Sherlock didn't care enough about Mrs. Hudson to check on her when told she was dying, back during TRF.

Willow · February 10, 2014 10:46 pm

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Willow wrote:
Tinks wrote:

I think when it was shown from John's side, there were many times when we could still see things in Sherlock that he couldn't.
There were many times when John took Sherlock at face value but, by a look in his eyes or an urgency in his actions, Sherlock showed that a lot of his emotionless front is an act, a coat of armour.

Yes, I agree that John is not a good observer, and to a certain extent he actively avoids looking; I'm not sure how much of this is consciously intentional on his part, or whether he simply isn't good at it. It is a bit odd because doctors are trained to become good observers; obviously some are better than others but it's a skill which can be learned, and has to be developed, if they are going to be any good as doctors.
I don't think it's conscious at all-- I think it may be a way of categorizing people-- and once he does it, he becomes rather rigid about his view of a person. But I think it gets in the way of him really *seeing* people for who they are, sometimes. Look at how he views Sherlock, Mary, and Mycroft. He seems to have rather one-dimensional ideas of who they are, and is totally blown away when the facts don't match up to his perceptions. He sees, but does not observe... and that's another reason why Sherlock taking John along on his quest to dismantle Moriarty's crime empire would have probably gotten them both killed. And telling John, who doesn't judge people all that well-- he really could have let something slip to a person he mistakenly trusted, and gotten Sherlock killed.

I have no doubt at all that John would have been a total disaster attempting to do undercover work; even if we ignore the fact that much of the world does not speak English, and John only speaks English, we are still left with him seeing but not observing, and hearing but not listening. The scene where Sherlock is explaining to him about CAM is a perfect example; John is so gobsmacked by Janine's presence that he doesn't register anything of what Sherlock actually says to him.

Again, the explanation Sherlock Holmes gave to Dr John Watson in canon perfectly sums up why our Sherlock didn't tell our John; our problem is that our John isn't modest enough to admit that there were valid reasons for not telling him...

RavenMorganLeigh · February 10, 2014 10:48 pm

Willow wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Willow wrote:

Yes, I agree that John is not a good observer, and to a certain extent he actively avoids looking; I'm not sure how much of this is consciously intentional on his part, or whether he simply isn't good at it. It is a bit odd because doctors are trained to become good observers; obviously some are better than others but it's a skill which can be learned, and has to be developed, if they are going to be any good as doctors.
I don't think it's conscious at all-- I think it may be a way of categorizing people-- and once he does it, he becomes rather rigid about his view of a person. But I think it gets in the way of him really *seeing* people for who they are, sometimes. Look at how he views Sherlock, Mary, and Mycroft. He seems to have rather one-dimensional ideas of who they are, and is totally blown away when the facts don't match up to his perceptions. He sees, but does not observe... and that's another reason why Sherlock taking John along on his quest to dismantle Moriarty's crime empire would have probably gotten them both killed. And telling John, who doesn't judge people all that well-- he really could have let something slip to a person he mistakenly trusted, and gotten Sherlock killed.

I have no doubt at all that John would have been a total disaster attempting to do undercover work; even if we ignore the fact that much of the world does not speak English, and John only speaks English, we are still left with him seeing but not observing, and hearing but not listening. The scene where Sherlock is explaining to him about CAM is a perfect example; John is so gobsmacked by Janine's presence that he doesn't register anything of what Sherlock actually says to him.

Again, the explanation Sherlock Holmes gave to Dr John Watson in canon perfectly sums up why our Sherlock didn't tell our John; our problem is that our John isn't modest enough to admit that there were valid reasons for not telling him...

Point!!!! Plus, John has that tendency to punch first and think later....

February 11, 2014 1:18 pm

Of course Sherlock couldnt have told John he was alive, the results would have been disastrous, but nevertheless its understandable John is really angry about this. And its worse than in canon, because in canon only Mycroft knew. Also John has trust issues but he trusts Sherlock and Sherlock didnt trust him and let him grieve. Of course this is bad from Johns point of view. When he calms down and realises Sherlock is really sorry about having hurt him he forigves him pretty quickly.

Willow · February 11, 2014 2:07 pm

1895 wrote:
Of course Sherlock couldnt have told John he was alive, the results would have been disastrous, but nevertheless its understandable John is really angry about this. And its worse than in canon, because in canon only Mycroft knew. Also John has trust issues but he trusts Sherlock and Sherlock didnt trust him and let him grieve. Of course this is bad from Johns point of view. When he calms down and realises Sherlock is really sorry about having hurt him he forigves him pretty quickly.

Well, John Watson was worse than in canon because he abused Sherlock before rushing off to the allegedly dying Mrs Hudson. I do accept that he must have asked himself whether His Last Row contributed to Sherlock jumping, but it's six of one and half dozen of the other in the responsibility stakes

RavenMorganLeigh · February 11, 2014 7:23 pm

Another thing that makes Sherlock's decision not to tell John a smart decision is that John often can't see the big picture. It wasn't just John's life at stake. It was also Mrs. Hudson's and Lestrade's. And , after that--(if the cat got let out of the bag) Harry's, Stamford, Molly, other relatives, Sherlock's parents, Mycroft, etc, etc, ... where would it stop?

SherlocklivesinOH · February 11, 2014 8:09 pm

I think the number of people who DID know - and therefore Sherlock was in some sense trusting more than John - was a big issue for John.

And although John didn't know this at the time of the Baker Street scene, every time he forgives Sherlock, he keeps losing him or almost losing him:

1) Reichenbach
2) The shooting
3) the M16 mission

As I have said, John's lashing out at Sherlock during the Baker Street due to leftover anger from Sherlock's two-year disappearance might have "worked better" in the sense of being believable, if we hadn't had TSoT in between the two episodes where John shows anger. In TSoT you really felt like that issue was over, and any "tension" between them was due to Sherlock's fear of losing John...which he nonetheless handles pretty maturely...and TSoT actually feels very "series finale-ish"...but then in the NEXT episode John is once angry at Sherlock...for something that doesn't seem to be Sherlock's fault.

Last edited by SherlocklivesinOH (February 11, 2014 8:14 pm)

RavenMorganLeigh · February 11, 2014 8:59 pm

Swanpride wrote:
Plus the other people were not forced to witness Sherlock's jump...can you imagine how traumatic that must have been for John?

John wasn't even supposed to be there, was he? Isn't that why Sherlock lured John back to Baker Street with the fake call about Mrs. Hudson being near death?

RavenMorganLeigh · February 11, 2014 9:01 pm

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:
I think the number of people who DID know - and therefore Sherlock was in some sense trusting more than John - was a big issue for John.

And although John didn't know this at the time of the Baker Street scene, every time he forgives Sherlock, he keeps losing him or almost losing him:

1) Reichenbach
2) The shooting
3) the M16 mission

As I have said, John's lashing out at Sherlock during the Baker Street due to leftover anger from Sherlock's two-year disappearance might have "worked better" in the sense of being believable, if we hadn't had TSoT in between the two episodes where John shows anger. In TSoT you really felt like that issue was over, and any "tension" between them was due to Sherlock's fear of losing John...which he nonetheless handles pretty maturely...and TSoT actually feels very "series finale-ish"...but then in the NEXT episode John is once angry at Sherlock...for something that doesn't seem to be Sherlock's fault.

I re-watched the series last night-- and i gotta tell you, I think you're spot on.. I felt like I was getting whiplash. It's like, oh greatm they're cool again, and then-- oh, here we go again--crap!

Tinks · February 11, 2014 9:33 pm

I think his anger in Baker Street was solely about Mary's betrayal, and he lashed out at Sherlock for it again and again - he didn't even seem angry about Mary shooting him, so much as the fact that she'd lied about who she was.
It simply wasn't John Watson and at this point I don't know where the writers have taken him.

Oh, and in the issue of Sherlock trusting others over John - I really don't think that's it.
No one who knew Sherlock was alive was in danger from Moriarty's assasins It was as simple as that - those who were in danger had to believe and act as if he were dead; Sherlock double checked on the roof the names of those who were being watched and I think his distress when he made the call to John was in part due to the fact that he couldn't tell him the truth.
In all honesty, Sherlock had a lot less to atone for than Mary does currently, imo.

Willow · February 11, 2014 11:24 pm

Swanpride wrote:
It's not like John has forgiven her completely....he did say that he will be pissed off in the future.

And what is worse it's a matter of perspective. Mary nearly killed Sherlock for real, but that was a scare which was over pretty fast. But Sherlock fake-killed himself for two years. Yes, we know that he was alive. but John had to go through all the grief as if Sherlock really died. So in a way, it was worse from an emotional perspective. It is better from a logical "who had the better reasons for his actions" perspective, but since when are feelings logical?

Well, no. Sherlock spent months in hospital and, regrettably, hospitals are nasty dangerous places, what with all the multiresistant bacteria, and so forth and so on, so anyone with any knowledge of hospitals knows perfectly well that it wasn't a scare which was over pretty fast. And whilst Dr Watson's observational skills seem to have deserted him in Baker St, even Dr Watson does actually know that hospitals are nasty dangerous places...

lil · February 12, 2014 12:15 am

I think for John after TEH , his fall issues with Sherlock are over.
When TSOT starts..John is back solving cases and having Sherlock as his best man/friend while clinging to Mary as his primary person.
At the end..Sherlock leaves alone..in a sort of sad acceptance of becoming secondary to John..he goes home and moves out Johns chair.
When we get to HLV ..the seperation isn't working for either of them..they obviously miss each other and have various issues.
This all changes in the confrontation scene with Mary.
Johns hurt and confused and looking to Sherlock for the answers.
It's subtle but once again Sherlock has become Johns primary person..it's we decide..we sit here...in our comfy chairs..and Mary gets the uncomfortable outsiders chair.
My take is ...our confusion with a lot of Johns actions here..is a reflection of Johns own confusion with his life and his choices.
He chose normal and safe this time..he didn't choose dangerous...but now hes stuck with it and doesn't know what to do.
Months pass .. xmas scene with Mary..and the start of the airport scene..John seems resigned to making the best of things with Mary.
Interestingly Mary is left sleeping with the others back @house....she doesn't get the opportunity to "insist on coming" as she did before. (Johnsblog) Mary remains secondary to John . Going wherever Sherlock leads is Johns primary objective.
And..when Sherlocks plane returns....John instantly stands to attention...becomes all smiley..and excited seems to ignore Mary's panic and is focused on Sherlock getting back off that plane.
This makes me hopeful that we are already sort of back to
" us against the world " ground for Sh/Jw.

However I do have reservations...Mary's extremes of character have thrown Johns out and made a lot his scenes a bit WTH John.
She is a bad fit for the program that was..and the John and Sherlock that are.
Ok she was entertaining fun and blah ..but it needs a sharp reigning in and to get back to the preset boundaries when they return.
Otherwise its no longer Sherlock....it's something else.
Canon never got boring did it?

Willow · February 12, 2014 1:03 am

Swanpride wrote:
Actually, Canon got pretty boring at least concerning the start of the stories...they were way less repetitive when Mary/Mrs. Watson was still around. Plus, this is a modern adaptation, no longer limited through society constrains. There are things this Mary can do which would have never been possible for a woman grown up in a society in which marriage or a servant job was the usual path for a woman.

Actually, there were quite a few women who most definitely pushed the boundaries in the period you are referring to; a fair number of women were soldiers, constantly in danger not only of being injured but also unmasked, but they did it all the same...

And no; I really do not accept that canon was boring...

lil · February 12, 2014 1:04 am

Swanpride wrote:
Actually, Canon got pretty boring at least concerning the start of the stories...they were way less repetitive when Mary/Mrs. Watson was still around. Plus, this is a modern adaptation, no longer limited through society constrains. There are things this Mary can do which would have never been possible for a woman grown up in a society in which marriage or a servant job was the usual path for a woman.

Well idk what 27 Rathbone films..Granada series went on oh idk forever..the Russian series.....so many films..?
Sherlock is the most portrayed fictional character ever.
And ok quite a few oddities, but in the main they all manage fine with the canonish format.
BC commented..and the writers , that the intention was to follow canon boundaries. Imo they have overstepped here and need to move back inside.
I was relieved when I heard the Gattiss " would be ridiculous...lethal nurse following" comment.
Indicates even he knows its a bit wooo atm.

Sure in a modern world Mary can be anything...but I don't think anyone would see cia/freelance assassin as a modern or normal or common career choice.
Its a little "out there"" don't you think?
They made Addler a whore..and Mary a murderer whos saving grace ends up being pregnant and tying John.
Not strong or good role models for women I feel.

I am not criticizing so much as..sure its been great fun going out and getting drunk with my mates..but I wanna make sure everyone gets safely home.
It started sober..its got a bit lol tipsy..time to get sober again.

Last edited by lil (February 12, 2014 1:21 am)

SherlocklivesinOH · February 12, 2014 1:44 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
SherlocklivesinOH wrote:
I think the number of people who DID know - and therefore Sherlock was in some sense trusting more than John - was a big issue for John.

And although John didn't know this at the time of the Baker Street scene, every time he forgives Sherlock, he keeps losing him or almost losing him:

1) Reichenbach
2) The shooting
3) the M16 mission

As I have said, John's lashing out at Sherlock during the Baker Street due to leftover anger from Sherlock's two-year disappearance might have "worked better" in the sense of being believable, if we hadn't had TSoT in between the two episodes where John shows anger. In TSoT you really felt like that issue was over, and any "tension" between them was due to Sherlock's fear of losing John...which he nonetheless handles pretty maturely...and TSoT actually feels very "series finale-ish"...but then in the NEXT episode John is once angry at Sherlock...for something that doesn't seem to be Sherlock's fault.
I re-watched the series last night-- and i gotta tell you, I think you're spot on.. I felt like I was getting whiplash. It's like, oh greatm they're cool again, and then-- oh, here we go again--crap!

TVTropes actually uses the term "Mood Whiplash," to refer to this kind of thing.

The other cause of the "whiplash" is that in TSoT, it seemed like Sherlock and Janine were genuinely attracted to each other, making another positive step for Sherlock toward improving his social skills and relationships.

The issue about the different ways women can be portrayed is actually an issue an issue I have with this series' Irene. The original DID push the boundaries of what was acceptable for society...she's an actress and an "adventuress," seems to live on her own, though has probably had some other affairs besides the one we hear about...but it seems like there are also people who admire her, much in the fashion of glamorizing celebrities today.

And she was shown NOT to be a criminal or a blackmailer, more of a woman who had been wronged by a man and had realized that a man's worth had nothing to do with class...but who outwits Sherlock Holmes and doesn't need to be rescued.

This Irene turned out to be a worse criminal than just being a prostitute, yet still in need of being saved by men when all was said and done.

I agree in thinking there were ways to give Mary a backstory that could put her in jeapordy without being so...extreme. She could have been an undercover cop or in witness protection, or somehow "crossed" some criminal in the past.

The original Mary was actually rather feisty, and she was on her own (she really was an orphan) and had a job as a governess or something like it...but given that she had had to survive on her own, it's possible to imagine that she wasn't "pure" by Victorian standards, just because she'd had to take steps to survive...but not this extreme.

Last edited by SherlocklivesinOH (February 12, 2014 2:11 am)

Willow · February 12, 2014 5:27 pm

I think it is worth bearing in mind the differences between the written form and an acted representation of the written form; ACD's written form was a framing device intended to put the reader into the beginning of the action. Mainstream TV is different; let's face it, Granada was worrying about a very different audience to the one ACD was aiming at...

RavenMorganLeigh · February 13, 2014 2:55 am

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
SherlocklivesinOH wrote:
I think the number of people who DID know - and therefore Sherlock was in some sense trusting more than John - was a big issue for John.

And although John didn't know this at the time of the Baker Street scene, every time he forgives Sherlock, he keeps losing him or almost losing him:

1) Reichenbach
2) The shooting
3) the M16 mission

As I have said, John's lashing out at Sherlock during the Baker Street due to leftover anger from Sherlock's two-year disappearance might have "worked better" in the sense of being believable, if we hadn't had TSoT in between the two episodes where John shows anger. In TSoT you really felt like that issue was over, and any "tension" between them was due to Sherlock's fear of losing John...which he nonetheless handles pretty maturely...and TSoT actually feels very "series finale-ish"...but then in the NEXT episode John is once angry at Sherlock...for something that doesn't seem to be Sherlock's fault.
I re-watched the series last night-- and i gotta tell you, I think you're spot on.. I felt like I was getting whiplash. It's like, oh greatm they're cool again, and then-- oh, here we go again--crap!
TVTropes actually uses the term "Mood Whiplash," to refer to this kind of thing.

The other cause of the "whiplash" is that in TSoT, it seemed like Sherlock and Janine were genuinely attracted to each other, making another positive step for Sherlock toward improving his social skills and relationships.

The issue about the different ways women can be portrayed is actually an issue an issue I have with this series' Irene. The original DID push the boundaries of what was acceptable for society...she's an actress and an "adventuress," seems to live on her own, though has probably had some other affairs besides the one we hear about...but it seems like there are also people who admire her, much in the fashion of glamorizing celebrities today.

And she was shown NOT to be a criminal or a blackmailer, more of a woman who had been wronged by a man and had realized that a man's worth had nothing to do with class...but who outwits Sherlock Holmes and doesn't need to be rescued.

This Irene turned out to be a worse criminal than just being a prostitute, yet still in need of being saved by men when all was said and done.

I agree in thinking there were ways to give Mary a backstory that could put her in jeapordy without being so...extreme. She could have been an undercover cop or in witness protection, or somehow "crossed" some criminal in the past.

The original Mary was actually rather feisty, and she was on her own (she really was an orphan) and had a job as a governess or something like it...but given that she had had to survive on her own, it's possible to imagine that she wasn't "pure" by Victorian standards, just because she'd had to take steps to survive...but not this extreme.

I have to agree with you-- I'm hugely dissapointed in how some of the women are portayed on the show; Irene is one of them, Mary could have been really, really cool-- and (I know nobody is going to agree with me) but-- Molly-- it's not just slapping the holy heck out of Sherlock, actually, what bothered me was how she treated Tom. the Sherlock substitute. Rather shrewish, and I didn't like it. There's a certain bitterness there ; the sweetness is gone. (sigh)

Tinks · February 13, 2014 5:27 am

@ravenmorganleigh
I'm with you on the way female characters are written - I've given my take a couple of times on this forum about the portrayal of "strong" women especially - Mary was great as she was to begin with but it has to be overemphasised by making her a killer, for instance!
And I'm totally with you on Molly slapping Sherlock - I don't get why so many thought this was a great moment; Molly is quiet, but strong and loyal. She has a hopeless crush on Sherlock but I've never seen her as weak, just quiet in nature.
And she was beginning to understand Sherlock, too.
Having her hit him like that seemed to take so much away from her, and I promise I do have a sense of humour! But I saw nothing funny in it, any more than I did in John head butting Sherlock.

SherlocklivesinOH · February 14, 2014 1:23 am

Tinks wrote:
@ravenmorganleigh
I'm with you on the way female characters are written - I've given my take a couple of times on this forum about the portrayal of "strong" women especially - Mary was great as she was to begin with but it has to be overemphasised by making her a killer, for instance!
And I'm totally with you on Molly slapping Sherlock - I don't get why so many thought this was a great moment; Molly is quiet, but strong and loyal. She has a hopeless crush on Sherlock but I've never seen her as weak, just quiet in nature.
And she was beginning to understand Sherlock, too.
Having her hit him like that seemed to take so much away from her, and I promise I do have a sense of humour! But I saw nothing funny in it, any more than I did in John head butting Sherlock.

The view of women is almost a step down from canon...for all we've heard about either Doyle or Holmes being misogynists, there aren't too many female criminals or truly "bad" women in canon, and females who break the law, or act dishonestly, are often shown to either have sympathetic reasons or to be accomplices of abusive partners who physically bully them into being accomplices.

(There is no evidence canon-Irene is actually threatening the King except his own claim; she has actually refused to sell it back to him for money; and he is basically persecuting her. He admits he tried to abduct her to get the photograph back.)

And while the women's jobs and life goals are obviously limited by their times, many show a certain amount of spunk and the ability to look out for themselves when they need to. Mary Morstan included. Holmes has positive things to say about her as a person, even as he is warning Watson against all love. I think he even acknowledges she could be of use in their work!

There are some pretty terrible men in canon; most of the women end up looking either smarter or morally better than the males surrounding them. (Violet Smith vs. her employer; Grace Dunbar vs. Gibson; Irene vs. the King)