BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Violence at the reunion

nakahara · December 15, 2014 9:29 am

Vhanja wrote:
Yes, it was a forced forgiveness. I do believe John WANTS to forgive Sherlock (and by TSoT I think it's clear that he has). But such things should come naturally, not come as a forced statement because you think you're going to die. How much is a declaration of friendship and forgiveness worth if you have to metaphorically twist someone's arm to get it before they are ready to give it?

I think that shows again how little Sherlock is able to understand and deal with emotions.

I see it in just the opposite manner. John´s pride was hurt and so he didn´t want to quickly yield to his craving to forgive Sherlock, because he felt he would kinda "loose face" if he did it. Sherlock then found an unconventional method that enabled John to let go of this pride and to voice his inner feelings. Therapeutic, if you ask me. If he didn´t do it, the issue between them would last far long than it deserved.

Vhanja wrote:
I don't think he is a masochist, but I do think he takes a lot of crap from Sherlock - more than he should. In S3 we see John standing up for himself a bit more instead of being stepped on all over in S1 and S2. (Both in TEH and the confrontation with Mary (and Sherlock) in Baker Street after the Mary revelation).

It´s not like Sherlock forces John to take that crap from him with a pistol aimed at John´s head. John wants to do it on his own volition because he benefits from their mutual connection. Sherlock provides excitement and sense of wonder and freedom from dullness - the things John craves - so he must also put up with more unpleasant sides of Sherlock´s character which go with it. To just "pick raisins" from the relationship and leave unpleasant aspects to other people would be nice, but that´s not how it works in life.

Vhanja · December 15, 2014 9:33 am

I don't view it as John's pride coming in the way. I view it as John is deeply hurt by Sherlock not trusting him enough to letting him know what's going on. Mycroft, Molly, his parents - even some of the homeless network - knew. But not John, his best friend. I would have been hurt too if it was me, I have no trouble at all understanding that.

Such a deep hurt takes more than a quick "sorry" to heal.

If my boyfriend had done something that really hurt me, I would also forgive him if I thought we were going to die. But that's not how you reconcile - by forcing someone to forgive you under traumatic stress. That's batshit insane.

No, Sherlock doesn't force John to do anything. I am just glad John is able to stand up for himself a bit more. People like Sherlock will be stepping all over people if they let him. There are people like that in real life too - so self-absorbed and so dominating in nature that they will take advantage of people until they put their foot down and draw the line.

SusiGo · December 15, 2014 9:49 am

As I said before, I really do not like to take sides with one of them. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, both have been hurt and have hurt each other. But there is a difference between series 1 and 2 on the one hand and series 3 on the other. John is no masochist. He is not suffering from Sherlock's behavious in the first two series. He can cope with his eccentricities and sees him for what he is and still chooses to be his friend.
Series 3, however, is different. And for me it is important to keep in mind that Moriarty is at the root of everything - Sherlock's fake suicide, John's heartbreak over this, Sherlock being alone and on the run and tortured, the two-year separation, the (ultimately distastrous) marriage with Mary. We cannot understand Sherlock and John's relationship in series 3 without remembering who was the cause for all that happened.

Vhanja · December 15, 2014 9:53 am

I agree that both have their issues, and dealing with intense emotions isn't really the strong forte for any of them. They are both slightly disfunctional.

Even though Moriarty is the reason behind the events, both Sherlock and John needs to take responsibility for how they deal with it and how they treat each other.

SusiGo · December 15, 2014 9:54 am

Of course, I do not deny this. I just think that there has been a lot of vicious and unjust criticism of both their behaviour after series 3 which I do not share.

nakahara · December 15, 2014 10:00 am

Vhanja wrote:
I don't view it as John's pride coming in the way. I view it as John is deeply hurt by Sherlock not trusting him enough to letting him know what's going on. Mycroft, Molly, his parents - even some of the homeless network - knew. But not John, his best friend. I would have been hurt too if it was me, I have no trouble at all understanding that.

Such a deep hurt takes more than a quick "sorry" to heal.

If my boyfriend had done something that really hurt me, I would also forgive him if I thought we were going to die. But that's not how you reconcile - by forcing someone to forgive you under traumatic stress. That's batshit insane.

Mycroft, Molly or Sherlock´s parents were never in danger from Moriarty. People who were endangered - John, Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson - were all three kept in the dark about Sherlock not being dead. It´s not like John was unique in this - Sherlock did not make exception only for him, ALL people who were targeted by Moriarty were not informed about the danger.

What more than "sorry" could Sherlock say or do so that John would believe that he is sincere? He already let John to pummel his face into a pulp and it didn´t help. What more was there to do? Would seppuku or self-immolation in grand style be enough to heal John´s hurt feelings?

Vhanja wrote:
No, Sherlock doesn't force John to do anything. I am just glad John is able to stand up for himself a bit more. People like Sherlock will be stepping all over people if they let him. There are people like that in real life too - so self-absorbed and so dominating in nature that they will take advantage of people until they put their foot down and draw the line.

In ASiB, when Sherlock inadvertedly hurt Molly with his casual deduction, he apologised immediately and even gave her a kiss to soothe her. Because he couldn´t stand to see her in tears. When Mrs. Hudson was hurt by an American, he threw him out of the window, because he couldn´t stand to see Mrs. Hudson harmed. In S3 he all but cut his heart out of his chest and gave it to John on a silver platter. Yet you describe him as if he was akin to Stalin or Hitler. He is never stepping over people to hurt them. Compare him with Magnussen or Mary - two people that would step over people ruthlessly for their own purposes - and you will see the difference at once. Sherlock looks pristine clear, vulnerable and innocent next to them.

Vhanja · December 15, 2014 10:04 am

Well, Moftiss has said themselves that they think he deserved a beating, that the tube-scene was absolutely horrible and that he had regressed socially after two years away from John. So from the writers side, the scenes are written as to be a negative, and actually quite horrible, thing.

Some quotes from the commentary (transcript by Ariane DeVere):

(Back in the Tube train)
Mark: “It’s interesting, though, that compared to the restaurant, John is essentially justified in having the same reaction but now he kind of thinks, ‘Well, that’s the way it has to be. You! D’oh!’ ... He stabs him later.”
Steven: “Because he’s been through the emotional rollercoaster where he’s now terribly pleased to be alive, he forgets slightly that he should be decking him again. But it’s also that thing of, you know, remembering why he likes him. He likes him because he’s outrageous and he’s funny.”
Mark: “He’s an adrenaline junkie; and it actually throws forward a bit to [Episode] three and about the person that he is.”

Steven: “At this moment, mysteriously, Sherlock Holmes managed to get forgiven for being a jerk by being an even bigger jerk!”
Mark: “It’s a lesson in: if you’re gonna tell a lie, tell a whopper. It’s actually the best way out of it.”
Steven: “In a way, it’s more or less saying, ‘Look, I am a jerk. How was that news to you?’”
Mark: “But this is even nastier than what he’s just done. As a piece of behaviour, it’s inexcusable.” (my bold)
Steven: “But I think the logic of it, in a way, or the emotional logic is, ‘I’m like this. Why do you expect me to be different?’ and true to the original Sherlock Holmes who simply would do that kind of thing, wouldn’t he ...”
Mark: “... for effect.”
Steven: “... for the drama.”
Mark: “It’s not commented on enough, the amount of people who say ... well, Lestrade is always saying, ‘You’d have made an actor and a rare one,’ and all those things, but he just loves the dramatic. He’ll do anything for the dramatic flourish at the end of the case.”
Steven: “Quite unnecessarily. He will lie, he’ll withhold information just so he looks good.”

Last edited by Vhanja (December 15, 2014 10:05 am)

nakahara · December 15, 2014 10:18 am

Those two writers lie and have curious double standards when dealing with their characters.

They put ton of gay references into their work then try to persuade us it was all just a joke and that we, audience, are stupid to percieve it as that.

They say Sherlock´s behaviour is inexcusable because he lied and was a bit cocky. They think he deserves to be beaten to a pulp for this. Yet when another characters shoots Sherlock to death, causing him immesurable pain and suffering and in the process causing a suicide of a person dependent on Sherlock´s help (Lord Smallwood) - the writers try to pass it out as an innocent deed which should be not taken so seriously. Just a little shooting incident between friends, that will be laughed off.

Well, I found the shooting to be inexcusable. Sherlock cockiness pales in comparison to this.

Yet, curiosly, no one is demanding that Mary would be slapped senseless for what she did. Here, people suddenly realise, that more violence would not cure the evil of her deeds.

Personally, I find it quite irrelevant what the writers say about the matter - I can´t take they words seriously after the above-mentioned examples.

Vhanja · December 15, 2014 10:22 am

They never said Sherlock should be beaten to a pulp, and that didn't happen either. He got away with a bloody nose and small cut to his lip.

As I've see so far, the writers only lie when dealing with what will happen or not happen in the future, as to not give away anything.

I do agree that the shooting was brushed away a little too quickly, but that doesn't have any impact on what I think about Sherlock's behaviour in TEH. Again, it has to do with being able to have more than one thought in my mind at the same time. Sherlock can be both extremely loyal, sacrifice a lot, and be greatly mistreated by Mary - and STILL be an arse in TEH.

nakahara · December 15, 2014 10:44 am

Vhanja wrote:
They never said Sherlock should be beaten to a pulp, and that didn't happen either. He got away with a bloody nose and small cut to his lip.

But as we know, Sherlock´s back was one big bloody pulp after he was tortured in Serbia. And the first thing John did was to throw Sherlock precisely on that wounded back. So in effect, John had actually beaten Sherlock to a pulp.

Also, the effect of a headbutt were unrealistically depicted, because the authors chickened and didn´t want to show full result of such assault on a person. The real depiction would contain broken nose, black and blue face, big black bruises around eyes.

Vhanja wrote:
As I've see so far, the writers only lie when dealing with what will happen or not happen in the future, as to not give away anything.

They lie constatly when it serves their purpose. For example, after TRF they were boasting that the audience didn´t notice one vital clue - yet no such thing ever materialised in TEH. They were just being boastful for no reason.

Vhanja wrote:
I do agree that the shooting was brushed away a little too quickly, but that doesn't have any impact on what I think about Sherlock's behaviour in TEH. Again, it has to do with being able to have more than one thought in my mind at the same time. Sherlock can be both extremely loyal, sacrifice a lot, and be greatly mistreated by Mary - and STILL be an arse in TEH.

You still don´t want to admit that he was only forced into this by Moriarty. And his "arsemanship" in TEH was just his desperate attempt to make things functional again after they were ruined beyond measure in TRF by the said criminal.

Vhanja · December 15, 2014 10:53 am

John had no way of knowing that Sherlock was severly beaten in Serbia. And even though unrealistically depicted, in the show Sherlock only sustain very minor injuries. Not anything like "being beaten in to a pulp."

Of course he was forced into jumping by Moriarty. I've written several times in this thread that I think his jump was amazingly brave and loyal. But I see no reason at all for keeping John in the dark for two years.

And, I don't know... I just don't have that negative view on the writers as you do. I think they are awesome.

nakahara · December 15, 2014 11:00 am

Vhanja wrote:
And, I don't know... I just don't have that negative view on the writers as you do. I think they are awesome.

I also think they are awesome - but when they are pulling our leg, they are pulling our leg.

Vhanja · December 15, 2014 11:01 am

Oh, they do. I've learned to not listen to a single word of what they say when it comes to future episodes.

Liberty · December 15, 2014 11:05 am

I agree about the violence being unrealistic - which is good, in a way. I don't really want to see the real thing. (For me, getting hit in the face meant only being able to eat liquids until the bones healed - facial bones are fragile). But I accept that in the show, this is comedy violence.

It's interesting that the writers suspected that Watson lied about being violent to Holmes - that he beat him up and didn't speak to him for a while, but instead wrote that he fainted. They have him as unreliable narrator in the Milverton story as well, where they believe that Holmes killed Milverton, but that Watson covered up for him when writing the story. I don't know if there's any more, but it's something that comes from having Holmes seen always through Watson's eyes, and not just that, through Watson's writing - what he chooses to reveal to the public (or embellish). They've chosen to read between the lines and see what Watson is hiding ... and as TV Sherlock stories are not told by John, we get to see what actually happened instead. However, it's "true" that Watson covered up his violence towards Holmes, it's possible that he felt ashamed of it.

Vhanja · December 15, 2014 12:03 pm

Yeah, I find it interesting too. And perhaps part of the upgrade - I reckon the gentleman-ness of the Victorian era would have prevented Watson from doing such a thing (or at least writing about it).

Liberty · December 15, 2014 12:23 pm

Yes, it's the writing about it - and I think it highlights that in the books we get not just Holmes but also Watson only through Watson's eyes. I have to say, I don't read the stories in that way and I take what he says at face value. But Moftiss know the stories much, much better than I do. I feel that John is a little different from Watson of the books - darker and more conflicted, I think (which Moftiss could say is consistent with the books, because Watson would not have shown that side in his stories).

maryagrawatson · December 15, 2014 2:07 pm

nakahara wrote:
Sherlock is only childish in small, insignificant moments, mostly when he is at home and bored out of his wits and when his childishness doesn´t harm anybody. But when things get serious, he is able of incredible restraint, patience and self-sacrifice.

Yes. Thank you.

I've been rewatching episodes after reading one too many Sherlock is an immature whiny brat fics and that's not he is on screen. Not even remotely. People latch onto the smallest, most insignificant details... One of the things that has surprised me the most is that he's actually polite a lot of the time. If someone says something and he didn't catch it, he doesn't just got 'What?!', but rather says 'Excuse me?' or 'I'm sorry?' He turns into an arrogant sod when people are talking down at him.

He's capable of empathy. We've seen him be very tender with Sarah, John, Mrs. Hudson, and Molly especially.

And I agree that all the nitpicking about his character flaws is ridiculous considering the enormous sacrifices he has made by the end of HLV.

What some people see as Sherlock acting childish in TEH in how he approaches the reunion, I see as Sherlock thinking 'John knows me. John will know this wasn't for nothing. He'll understand.' And then John doesn't understand and metaphorically and literally kicks his arse. And then I'm pretty sure Sherlocks spends the rest of the series thinking 'If John didn't get it, then no one could get it. I have to make John get it.' And then he spends the rest of the series trying to make up for something that doesn't need to be made up for.

I keep going back to the image of a whimpering puppy being kicked over and over and over again.

Mary

Vhanja · December 15, 2014 5:23 pm

I just saw the behind the scenes/documentary Sherlock Uncovered, that dealt a lot with TEH. Benedict is quite clear on the reunion - he says it's quite dark, that it's about a "betrayal of trust" and that Sherlock just returning like nothing is "awful". He also says that Moftiss and Martin was very good at getting all that across.

Last edited by Vhanja (December 15, 2014 5:27 pm)

chloejellybean5 · December 17, 2014 10:28 pm

I think Sherlock knows he has upset John, but he is unable to show that he really cares.
He uses comedy, "Are you really keeping that?", but Sherlock just doesn't know how to say a proper apology.

Last edited by chloejellybean5 (December 17, 2014 10:28 pm)

RavenMorganLeigh · December 18, 2014 1:23 am

maryagrawatson wrote:
nakahara wrote:
Sherlock is only childish in small, insignificant moments, mostly when he is at home and bored out of his wits and when his childishness doesn´t harm anybody. But when things get serious, he is able of incredible restraint, patience and self-sacrifice.
Yes. Thank you.

I've been rewatching episodes after reading one too many Sherlock is an immature whiny brat fics and that's not he is on screen. Not even remotely. People latch onto the smallest, most insignificant details... One of the things that has surprised me the most is that he's actually polite a lot of the time. If someone says something and he didn't catch it, he doesn't just got 'What?!', but rather says 'Excuse me?' or 'I'm sorry?' He turns into an arrogant sod when people are talking down at him.

He's capable of empathy. We've seen him be very tender with Sarah, John, Mrs. Hudson, and Molly especially.

And I agree that all the nitpicking about his character flaws is ridiculous considering the enormous sacrifices he has made by the end of HLV.

What some people see as Sherlock acting childish in TEH in how he approaches the reunion, I see as Sherlock thinking 'John knows me. John will know this wasn't for nothing. He'll understand.' And then John doesn't understand and metaphorically and literally kicks his arse. And then I'm pretty sure Sherlocks spends the rest of the series thinking 'If John didn't get it, then no one could get it. I have to make John get it.' And then he spends the rest of the series trying to make up for something that doesn't need to be made up for.

I keep going back to the image of a whimpering puppy being kicked over and over and over again.

Mary

Thank you! And I think the hysterical laughter at the end of TEH in the train car was JUST THAT. Hysteria.