BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Why did they bring the gun to Appledore?

nakahara · August 6, 2014 7:31 am

SolarSystem wrote:
nakahara wrote:
The reason why I don´t believe Sherlock thought about killing Magnussen immediatelly is that Sherlock doesn´t struck me as a type for cold-blooded murder.
I agree with you on that one. And let me just say that that's the reason why I really don't like it when Sherlock says "Merry Christmas!" before he shoots Magnussen. I know he's desperate and angry and probably pretty mad with himself for getting it all wrong. But him shouting "Merry Christmas" always feels just wrong to me.

Yes, that "Merry Christmas" thing was nasty. But Sherlock was trying to pose as "a crazy sociopath not entirely responsible for his actions" while he was shooting CAM, so those words were probably just that, a pose.

SusiGo · August 6, 2014 7:37 am

Yes. The words are really a litte over the top but I agree with nakahara that for Sherlock "sociopath" is always a disguise to protect himself and to hide behind. And this is the one time he uses the word while being really angry. His anger towards Magnussen is real and he has loathed him from the very beginning. What he did to John just sent him over the edge.

gently69 · August 6, 2014 8:11 am

His "Merry Christmas" could be for adrenalising him. The "final touch" for pulling the trigger.

SusiGo · August 6, 2014 8:19 am

Which would be quite an interesting contrast to his earlier happy words to John about Christmas.

gently69 · August 6, 2014 8:20 am

Yeah, that's right.

maryagrawatson · August 6, 2014 12:55 pm

nakahara wrote:
The reason why I don´t believe Sherlock thought about killing Magnussen immediatelly is that Sherlock doesn´t struck me as a type for cold-blooded murder.

The thing we're ignoring here is Sherlock's two years away. I seriously doubt he came out of that with clean hands. And then, there's the guys at the end of SIB who meet his sword. I really doubt that Magnussen was the first guy Sherlock killed.

Mary

gently69 · August 6, 2014 12:59 pm

But it won't be his daily routine ... killing people ...

maryagrawatson · August 6, 2014 1:24 pm

No, not his daily routine or something he likes to do, but once you've done it once, crossed that line, I suppose it must be easier.

Mary

besleybean · August 6, 2014 1:25 pm

I think Sherlock's line is John being happy.

gently69 · August 6, 2014 1:29 pm

No, I suppose not. Soldiers, police men and women ... they have to do it ... more and less. I think if you ask the majority of them they will tell you everything else but not that they find it "easier" after the first shot.

SusiGo · August 6, 2014 1:34 pm

I agree, gently. For someone who usually acts morally like Sherlock and does not get off killing people it does not get easier.

And I think Sherlock mainly wants John to be safe. I think he knows that is will not make John happy if he shoots Magnussen in front of his eyes.

nakahara · August 6, 2014 2:14 pm

maryagrawatson wrote:
nakahara wrote:
The reason why I don´t believe Sherlock thought about killing Magnussen immediatelly is that Sherlock doesn´t struck me as a type for cold-blooded murder.
The thing we're ignoring here is Sherlock's two years away. I seriously doubt he came out of that with clean hands. And then, there's the guys at the end of SIB who meet his sword. I really doubt that Magnussen was the first guy Sherlock killed.

Mary

We have absolutely no evidence that would prove that Sherlock did anything deliberately cruel to Moriarty´s gang. He could - but at the same time he could just put them behind bars as well. Still, when I watched Sherlock in S3, I certainly didn´t see a man hardened and embittered by his fresh two-years experience, I saw a man a bit warmer and more compassionate than he was in S1 and S2. He didn´t seem to me as a man forced to spill blood in his two-years absence.
And Sherlock´s swinging the sword around in SiB was self-defence and not the cold-blooded murder I mentioned above.
There is simply nothing in Sherlock that would indicate to me the hardness of character required to killing people off.
Just compare Sherlock in any season with John in "Study in pink". John has a certain aura of danger and hardness surrounding him, Sherlock doesn´t (even his stomping on the dying cabbie didn´t persuade me that he is able to kill people cold-bloodedly).

Last edited by nakahara (August 6, 2014 2:19 pm)

besleybean · August 6, 2014 2:19 pm

Murder is out of character and Sherlock obviously found it traumatiic, but he did it for John.

Last edited by besleybean (August 6, 2014 2:37 pm)

SusiGo · August 6, 2014 2:23 pm

I agree. He did it because it was absolutely necessary to keep John safe. And about the cabbie - we should not forget that this is a younger Sherlock who has already changed over the four years or so the series has covered so far.
He only uses violence to get information that is absolutely necessary or to revenge or save people he cares for, e.g. Mrs Hudson in ASiB. To me he does not return as a hardened killer from his two-years absence, on the contrary, he has become softer in many ways.

La Jolie · August 11, 2014 7:00 pm

Susi - I agree with you. I, too, didn't get the impression that Sherlock had got harder during his two years' absence, no matter what precisely he was doing. I rather like to believe that being uprooted and far away from his former "family", not even being able to keep in touch with most of them, made him realise just how much they all mean to him, so he values them all the more once he's back home, and that's the main reason why he's able to be so much more human this time around.

About the "Merry Christmas":

I feel that at Appledore, Sherlock definitely didn't say "Merry Christmas" to Magnussen (as a cruel sarcastic "good bye"), but to Mycroft. It's a direct echo and continuation (or counterpoint, if you like) of that earlier scene outside their parents' house:

MYCROFT: Also, your loss would break my heart.
SHERLOCK: What the hell am I supposed to say to that?!
MYCROFT: “Merry Christmas”?
SHERLOCK: You hate Christmas.

And then only an hour or so later, at Appledore, Sherlock does exactly what Mycroft wanted him to do and actually says "Merry Christmas", only by that time it's all so wrong, so wrong, so wrong.

And that's probably just what it was always like between the two of them - Sherlock would never just do what Mycroft asked (or told) him to do, or if he did, he would do it in his own way, with a twist, and more often than not end up annoying Mycroft rather than pleasing him. That scene in HLV is exactly the same scenario writ large, on a scale of life and death.

So that line doesn't strike me as sarcastic and cold-blooded and nasty and over the top at all (as it would surely have if it had been addressed to Magnussen). It's only bitter and desperate and terribly poignant, and it breaks my heart.

Last edited by La Jolie (August 11, 2014 7:07 pm)

Kittyhawk · May 23, 2015 1:26 pm

If Sherlock decided in the "non-vault" to kill Magnussen - why did he wait until the police had their guns on him to actually do it? For me that shows decidedly suicidal tendencies (I mean, what were those guys doing? Shouldn't they have shot Sherlock before he pulled the trigger?) - and he knows it, which is why he's throwing the pistol away immediately and shouting at John "Stay away from me!"

I'm rather amazed at Magnussen, though - he practically invited all his victims to kill him when he said the blackmail material was only in his head (leaving aside the question of how viable blackmail without proof can be). I rather expected John to pull his gun in the little white room...

As for the original question, I agree with nakahara that Sherlock brought the gun (in my opinion illegal - I don't see how John could have a gun license) to threaten CAM if necessary. What I do not understand is why John and Sherlock were not searched before entering the helicopter or the house...

Liberty · May 23, 2015 2:09 pm

Maybe Sherlock waited to make absolutely sure that he was seen as the murderer and not John. If he'd shot Magnussen straight away, then surely John would have been implicated, an accessory? So he waits until there are witnesses and trots out the "sociopath" line (although it would have been difficult to hear in the helicopters, but never mind!).

I don't think Magnussen normally revealed that everything was in his head. He didn't always need proof, because the threat of publishing (or actually publishing) was enough. The worst people could do would be to take him to court, and he no doubt would have fixed the outcome of that with more blackmail, or perhaps, dug up proof when necessary. Possibly most victims just wanted to avoid the truth coming out rather than fight over proof. In Mary's case, proof wasn't needed at all - he just needed to contact people who wanted her dead.

Kittyhawk · May 23, 2015 2:49 pm

I agree that normally Magnussen would not reveal that everything was in his head - the vault-rumour must have come from somewhere, probably he started it. But now he has told John and Sherlock - one writes a blog, the other a website - so he would have to assume that word would get out eventually.

I'm pretty sure that the Blackmailer's Manual contains a big chapter on how to avoid being killed by making sure the damning information on the victim goes public if anything happens to the blackmailer. Saying "it's all in my head" seems to me the exactly wrong thing to do...

Liberty · May 23, 2015 4:20 pm

But from Magnussen's point of view it didn't matter: he had control of John and Sherlock (or thought he did) because of Mary. That was the point of the face-flicking, wasn't it? To show how powerless they were. They wouldn't want to do anything which would endanger Mary's life, including revealing Magnussen's secrets.

(In the long run, even if Magnussen was exposed, I doubt it would stop him. He had money: if he needed physical evidence, I'm sure he could get hold of it. I think part of the fun, for him, was that he didn't need it).

Vhanja · May 23, 2015 5:02 pm

Yeah, I also figured Sherlock waited until the cops came so that he had witnesses that he shot Magnussen, not John.