I haven't a clue on your last question; it baffles me as well

However, John's violence isn't confined to TEH; the rule of three was followed up by the Sign of Three, which segues into HLV with John deciding to beat up a junkie for no apparent reason. He wasn't being attacked, he wasn't defending himself, it was completely unnecessary, and he obviously had fun doing it. These are not the qualities of an officer and a gentleman, which is why it's so difficult to reconcile this with canon. Belis has noted that his actions at the drug den may represent him projecting his own guilt and insecurities about substance misuse, in the context of his PTSD, and I regard that as a rational way of analysing those scenes and his subsequent actions in dragging Sherlock off to the hospital; after all, his former commanding officer Sholto is remarkably bluntt about asking John whether he's still seeing his psychiatrist, which suggests that John really did need a psychiatrist in the first place.

Moftiss are, of course, free to do what they like but they do seem to be sliding into having their cake and eating it; the canonical John Watson would not have carried on hitting someone who was not hitting him back. That iron rule applies to everyone, not just Sherlock; it's just not done. ..

 

I actually enjoyed him at the drug den though it wasn't quite officer and a gentleman. Wiggins did have a knife however- so one could assert he needed to incapacitate him in a way. He also want cooperating on telling John where the boy was. John was on a rescue mission and he was going to accomplish it.

He could've broken it but just made it all "sqhishy" ;)

So i suppose we could argue he showed restraint.

I'm not arguing at all that John has no issues.

I just think trying to shoe horn in drug use or mental diagnosis beyond PTSD or some sort of war related mind games, depression, aggression etc is beyond what Mofftiss is expecting us to gather.

His reactions are extreme often. But so is his life. I haven't really found disparity between the two. If I lived in thar r high stress high danger environment if probably act out as well. And even more so if it got me good ratings for my series ;)

I think part of my accepting him as he is, had been made clear reading this thread- I didn't have much Sheelock Holmes experience prior to this show- just American versions of it that are well Americanized or disguised- monk, house etc and elementary which we can't watch now because I yell "he's not sherlock" the entire time... I hadn't read the books- I am now however, so I don't have preconceived notions of how Watson should be. I'm also used to my versions of Watsons from those shows regularly angry at their versions of Sherlocks.

I was able to readily accept Martin Freeman and his bamf Watson. I've at times loved him more than Sherlock! Blasphemy.

I also started watching after Christmas went right into 2 and then 3 within a matter of weeks so I didn't have time to pine away for two year gaps in between romanticizing things in between, making head canon or analyzing everything in each episode (like I am now to fill the void)

So perhaps that's why I just accept it.

And honestly watching them all rapid fire as I did- I didn't see it as a huge jump in character.

I'm not sayinf it's canon at all but maybe if people could rewatch it with new eyes but all the thoughts they've formed and notions they've conceived they could see he was always like that , he's just been more developed.

Now I'm off to watch the baker st scene that's causing such angst. I get so caught up in the excellent acting and feeling bad for Watson that in haven't taken in Sherlocks suffering.

I've just been assuming Watson is so shocked by the dramatic reveal that his beloved wife isn't at all whom she says is that he can't possibly see Sherlock is fading fast. I seem to be wrong so I want to go and watch with new eyes!

SusiGo wrote:

Sorry, but I really do not understand this wish to find mental ill-health in the characters and classify them according to certain medical categories. The only thing we know for a fact is that John has been treated for PTSD and that Sherlock in all probability has taken drugs in the past and has used them again (for whatever reason) at the beginning of HLV. 
Of course I am neither a psychiatrist nor a doctor but then most of the viewers are not. 
People who suffer from PTSD and experience so many tragic and shocking events like John Watson may diverge from what is deemed normal behaviour without falling into a medical category like bipolar disorder. 


 

I hear what you're saying, but for the last few years people have been trying to diagnose Sherlock with everything from true psycopathy to Asperger's to being Bi-Polar, Autistic, etc, etc, ..

To my mind, what's good for the gander is good for the other gander. Besides, the writers opened that door with the therapy for PTSD;  Mycroft figuring out that John wasn't haunted by the war, he missed it; and then Magnussen's referring to John and Mary as "Mr. & Mrs. Psycopath", -- John has always been seen as "damaged".

I agree with you in some points. But there is not indication whatsoever of John self-medicating by drinking alcohol or taking drugs. The only time we see him drunk is during the stag night which is an absolutely normal thing to do on this occasion. 

As for his role as Dr. Watson - the interesting thing is that we never see him doing his job as often as in series 3: in his surgery, with Sholto, with Bainbridge, with Janine, with Sherlock. And Sherlock praises him for saving other people's lives. Therefore the fact that he does not seem to notice Sherlock's critical condition is due to him being deeply shaken and shocked by what he has just learned. This does not mean his treatment of Sherlock is fair but it is understandable. 
 

SusiGo wrote:

I agree with you in some points. But there is not indication whatsoever of John self-medicating by drinking alcohol or taking drugs. The only time we see him drunk is during the stag night which is an absolutely normal thing to do on this occasion. 

As for his role as Dr. Watson - the interesting thing is that we never see him doing his job as often as in series 3: in his surgery, with Sholto, with Bainbridge, with Janine, with Sherlock. And Sherlock praises him for saving other people's lives. Therefore the fact that he does not seem to notice Sherlock's critical condition is due to him being deeply shaken and shocked by what he has just learned. This does not mean his treatment of Sherlock is fair but it is understandable. 
 

But we do see John drinking in the first short film; after Lestrade leaves he gets the bottle of scotch out and pours himself a drink in broad daylight. Drinking strong alcohol by yourself during the daytime is generally regarded as a major danger signal; it isn't social drinking. Using strong alcohol as a crutch while you watch something which is emotionally painful to you is really not a good idea for anyone, ever, and John, of all people, must be aware of that fact.

Moftiss did, I think, play fair on that; they have established that John's got a problem.

On the stag night John was both knocking back shorts and spiking Sherlock's drinks so much that they were unconscious in a couple of hours, and whilst conventionally the aim of the stag night is to get drunk, traditionally it's supposed to last more than a couple of hours, as Lestrade notes.
 
The profound irony of Sherlock's speech is that we discover that much of it is untrue; John didn't save Sherlock's life. Instead he threatened to kill him; I accept that his world was overturned but he went beyond not saving Sherlock's life to actually threatening it. And whilst I can make sense of it as an expression of his uncontrolled PTSD, I also note the fact that John hasn't been doing anything to help himself; in the end we do have to take responsibility for our actions.

Willow wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

I agree with you in some points. But there is not indication whatsoever of John self-medicating by drinking alcohol or taking drugs. The only time we see him drunk is during the stag night which is an absolutely normal thing to do on this occasion. 

As for his role as Dr. Watson - the interesting thing is that we never see him doing his job as often as in series 3: in his surgery, with Sholto, with Bainbridge, with Janine, with Sherlock. And Sherlock praises him for saving other people's lives. Therefore the fact that he does not seem to notice Sherlock's critical condition is due to him being deeply shaken and shocked by what he has just learned. This does not mean his treatment of Sherlock is fair but it is understandable. 
 

But we do see John drinking in the first short film; after Lestrade leaves he gets the bottle of scotch out and pours himself a drink in broad daylight. Drinking strong alcohol by yourself during the daytime is generally regarded as a major danger signal; it isn't social drinking. Using strong alcohol as a crutch while you watch something which is emotionally painful to you is really not a good idea for anyone, ever, and John, of all people, must be aware of that fact.

Moftiss did, I think, play fair on that; they have established that John's got a problem.

On the stag night John was both knocking back shorts and spiking Sherlock's drinks so much that they were unconscious in a couple of hours, and whilst conventionally the aim of the stag night is to get drunk, traditionally it's supposed to last more than a couple of hours, as Lestrade notes.
 
The profound irony of Sherlock's speech is that we discover that much of it is untrue; John didn't save Sherlock's life. Instead he threatened to kill him; I accept that his world was overturned but he went beyond not saving Sherlock's life to actually threatening it. And whilst I can make sense of it as an expression of his uncontrolled PTSD, I also note the fact that John hasn't been doing anything to help himself; in the end we do have to take responsibility for our actions.

As for Sherlock's speech: He looks back on their whole history not only on what happened since his return. John shot the cabbie. John tried to enable Sherlock to escape at the pool. John attacked the Golem who was trying to strangle Sherlock at the planetarium. John persuaded Irene to tell Sherlock she was alive because he thought it was important ot Sherlock. John defended Sherlock against the police and punched the Chief Superintendent. John showed Sherlock that he is a person who deserves to have friends and does not have to be lonely. 
So please do not tell me that John has never done anything important for Sherlock. He did this for six episodes and now it is Sherlock's turn to give something back even if it is not duly reciprocated for the time being. 
 

Susigo

I have never suggested that John has never done anything important for Sherlock; I don't believe that is the case. Clearly he has.

My remarks specifically address what the writers have shown us. And in this instance it's as if the writer went back to the Best Man speech and ticked it off, item by item, to show just how mistaken Sherlock was. Moffat wrote both the Best Man's speech and HLV; it is vintage Moffat because he loves to turn things on their head. We think we know where we are going, and suddenly it's a 180 degree turn and we haven't a clue what's going on.

I don't for one moment think that Sherlock lacks appreciation for all that his friend has done for him; clearly he does. But as others have noted, Sherlock was off his game this season; he made mistakes, and he failed to use his brain when he really should have. That is what the writers gave us; they knew perfectly well that it was so much of a reverse from what went before that they didn't give the actors the script for HLV until the first two full length episodes had been completed. They wanted us to believe that all was sweetness and light, so the bitter black comedy of HLV would hit us all the harder.

And it worked.

SusiGo wrote:

Sorry, but I really do not understand this wish to find mental ill-health in the characters and classify them according to certain medical categories. The only thing we know for a fact is that John has been treated for PTSD and that Sherlock in all probability has taken drugs in the past and has used them again (for whatever reason) at the beginning of HLV. 
Of course I am neither a psychiatrist nor a doctor but then most of the viewers are not. 
People who suffer from PTSD and experience so many tragic and shocking events like John Watson may diverge from what is deemed normal behaviour without falling into a medical category like bipolar disorder. 
 

Personally I don't think the writers intended for Sherlock to have any particular disorder in a strict clinical sence. Rather they intended him to be an unique charater with an odd personality. In creating that they gave him characteristics that happen to be symptoms of a number of conditions. Same applies to John. PTSD is the obvious diagnosis here and will cover a lot of ground but you can make an academic argument for a number of personality disorders and other conditions. Then you can flip it round and have a discussion about pitfalls of medicalisation of normal emotions and why we even have diagnosis like 'pathological grief'.

For people intrested in the subject it creates a bit of a game. It's like spot the reference to canon but instead it's spot the ICD-10 criteria. ;) Sometimes it's fun to talk shop in a slightly different context.

belis wrote:

For people intrested in the subject it creates a bit of a game. It's like spot the reference to canon but instead it's spot the ICD-10 criteria. ;) Sometimes it's fun to talk shop in a slightly different context.

Oh my god, ICD-10 on the Forum!  Yikes! I come here to escape thinking about it.  The US is switching over to it on Oct.1, 2014 and I'm in the thick of it. As a coding education manager. I'm training everyone to be ready. *crinch*.  But I like the challenge:
PTSD (chronic)= F43.12
If you're in the UK, Belis, I don't know if you have the same codes as we will have. Our version, ICD-10-CM (clinical modification) I believe is specifically modified for the US.  Is your code for chronic PTSD the same?
Sorry folks, no more shop talk after this, I promise..... 
 

KeepersPrice wrote:

belis wrote:

For people intrested in the subject it creates a bit of a game. It's like spot the reference to canon but instead it's spot the ICD-10 criteria. ;) Sometimes it's fun to talk shop in a slightly different context.

Oh my god, ICD-10 on the Forum! Yikes! I come here to escape thinking about it. The US is switching over to it on Oct.1, 2014 and I'm in the thick of it. As a coding education manager. I'm training everyone to be ready. *crinch*. But I like the challenge:
PTSD (chronic)= F43.12
If you're in the UK, Belis, I don't know if you have the same codes as we will have. Our version, ICD-10-CM (clinical modification) I believe is specifically modified for the US. Is your code for chronic PTSD the same?
Sorry folks, no more shop talk after this, I promise.....
 

There is no escape from the evils of ICD-10 Muhaha  

Belis opens the magic book and flips through to double check (I only remember the codes that I use most fraquently)... and yes indeed, chronic PTSD is F43.12. I would have it down as F43.1, we don't bother with the last digit for clinical purposes.

Best of luck for the switch.

KeepersPrice wrote:

Oh cool! The US uses codes for reimbursement from the insurance companies so we must use the full code. In fact the guidelines state that a code is not considered a 'code' until its maximum characters are met.

ICD10 codes are used to some extent in funding of physical health stuff. In mental health we have something called clustering, which is going to be used for this purpose. F43.12 could means someone like John, who functions well, holds a job and has hardly anything to do with mental health services. Or it could be equaly applicable to someone who is so disabled by their anxiety and flashbacks that they have been an inpatient on psychiatric ward for months. Clusters attempt to take into account  diagnosis, severity and impact on functioning to better judge how much funding should be attached to that particular person. If you are intrested to find out more about clusters: http://www.datadictionary.nhs.uk/data_dictionary/nhs_business_definitions/m/mental_health_care_cluster_de.asp?shownav=1